Search

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may improve care for patients with heart failure. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) is a patient survey that captures symptom frequency, symptom burden, physical limitations, social limitations, and quality of life. Despite the utility of PROs and the KCCQ-12, the implementation and routine use of these measures can be difficult. We conducted an evaluation of clinician perceptions of the KCCQ-12 to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation into clinical practice. Methods: We conducted interviews with cardiologists from 4 institutions across the United States and Canada (n=16) and observed clinic visits at 1 institution in Northern California (n=5). Qualitative analysis was conducted in 2 rounds: (1) rapid analysis constructed around major themes related to the aims of the study and (2) content analysis with codes derived from the rapid analysis and implementation science. Results: Most heart failure physicians and advanced practice clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 was acceptable, appropriate, and useful in clinical care. Clinician engagement efforts, trialability, and the straightforward design of the KCCQ-12 facilitated its use in clinical care. Further opportunities identified to facilitate implementation include more streamlined integration into the electronic health record and comprehensive staff education on PROs. Participants highlighted that the KCCQ-12 was useful in clinic visits to improve the consistency of patient history taking, focus patient-clinician conversations, collect a more accurate account of patient quality of life, track trends in patient well-being over time, and refine clinical decision-making. Conclusions: In this qualitative study, clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 enhanced several aspects of heart failure patient care. Use of the KCCQ-12 was facilitated by a robust clinician engagement campaign and the design of the KCCQ-12 itself. Future implementation of PROs in heart failure clinic should focus on streamlining electronic health record integration and providing additional staff education on the value of PROs. Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate how variation in the way patient satisfaction feedback is delivered relates to physician well-being and perceptions of its impact on patient care, job satisfaction, and clinical decision making. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS A cross-sectional electronic survey was sent to faculty physicians from a large academic medical center in March 29, 2019. Physicians reported their exposure to feedback (timing, performance relative to peers, or channel) and related perceptions. The Professional Fulfillment Index captured burnout and professional fulfillment. Associations between feedback characteristics and well-being or perceived impact were tested using analysis of variance or logistic regression adjusted for covariates. RESULTS Of 1016 survey respondents, 569 (56.0%) reported receiving patient satisfaction feedback. Among those receiving feedback, 303 (53.2%) did not believe that this feedback improved patient care. Compared with physicians who never received feedback, those who received any type of feedback had higher professional fulfillment scores (mean, 6.6±2.1 vs 6.3±2.0; P=.03) but also reported an unfavorable impact on clinical decision making (odds ratio [OR], 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.7; P

Among patients with heart failure (HF), patient-reported health status provides information beyond standard clinician assessment. Although HF management guidelines recommend collecting patient-reported health status as part of routine care, there is minimal data on the impact of this intervention.The Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic (PRO-HF) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial testing the hypothesis that routine health status assessment via the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) leads to an improvement in patient-reported health status among patients treated in a tertiary health system HF clinic. PRO-HF has completed randomization of 1,248 participants to routine KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. Patients randomized to the KCCQ-12 arm complete KCCQ-12 assessments before each HF clinic visit with the results shared with their treating clinician. Clinicians received education regarding the interpretation and potential utility of the KCCQ-12. The primary endpoint is the change in KCCQ-12 over 1 year. Secondary outcomes are HF therapy patterns and health care utilization, including clinic visits, testing, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits. As a sub-study, PRO-HF will also evaluate the impact of routine KCCQ-12 assessment on patient experience and the accuracy of clinician-assessed health status. In addition, clinicians completed semi-structured interviews to capture their perceptions on the trial's implementation of routine KCCQ-12 assessment in clinical practice.PRO-HF is a pragmatic, randomized trial based in a real-world HF clinic to determine the feasibility of routinely assessing patient-reported health status and the impact of this intervention on health status, care delivery, patient experience, and the accuracy of clinician health status assessment.

Health systems are challenged to provide equitable access to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outpatient care during the pandemic. Infected patients may have difficulties accessing regular care and rely on emergency rooms. With the goal to improve system efficiencies and access to care, Stanford launched a designated outpatient COVID-19 "Care and Respiratory Observation of Patients With Novel Coronavirus" clinic in April 2020 in which all adult Stanford patients with newly diagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were offered follow-up for 2-3 weeks through video, telephone, and in-person encounters. Patients were triaged into risk categories and received home pulse oximeters based on a standardized protocol. Between April 15, 2020, and March 26, 2021, the Care and Respiratory Observation of Patients With Novel Coronavirus clinic enrolled 1317 patients. The clinic provided evaluation of Patients under Investigation, management of acute COVID-19 symptoms, care for COVID-19 patients after hospital discharge, clinical advice, and opportunities for research. The authors share crucial implementation lessons related to team agility, care personalization, and resource optimization.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care practices across the United States have transitioned from in-person visits to virtual visits. However, there is limited information regarding the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of such a transition. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term implications of rapid transition to video visits at Stanford Primary Care through qualitative interviews with key stakeholders., Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic spurred health systems across the world to quickly shift from in-person visits to safer video visits. Objective: To seek stakeholder perspectives on video visits' acceptability and effect 3 weeks after near-total transition to video visits. Design: Semistructured qualitative interviews. Setting: 6 Stanford general primary care and express care clinics at 6 northern California sites, with 81 providers, 123 staff, and 97 614 patient visits in 2019. Participants: Fifty-three program participants (overlapping roles as medical providers [n = 20], medical assistants [n = 16], nurses [n = 4], technologists [n = 4], and administrators [n = 13]) were interviewed about video visit transition and challenges. Intervention: In 3 weeks, express care and primary care video visits increased from less than 10% to greater than 80% and from less than 10% to greater than 75%, respectively. New video visit providers received video visit training and care quality feedback. New system workflows were created to accommodate the new visit method. Measurements: Nine faculty, trained in qualitative research methods, conducted 53 stakeholder interviews in 4 days using purposeful (administrators and technologists) and convenience (medical assistant, nurses, and providers) sampling. A rapid qualitative analytic approach for thematic analysis was used. Results: The analysis revealed 12 themes, including Pandemic as Catalyst; Joy in Medicine; Safety in Medicine; Slipping Through the Cracks; My Role, Redefined; and The New Normal. Themes were analyzed using the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework to identify critical issues for continued program utilization. Limitations: Evaluation was done immediately after deployment. Although viewpoints may have evolved later, immediate evaluation allowed for prompt program changes and identified broader issues to address for program sustainability. Conclusion: After pandemic-related systems transformation at Stanford, critical issues to sustain video visit long-term viability were identified. Specifically, technology ease of use must improve and support multiparty videoconferencing. Providers should be able to care for their patients, regardless of geography. Providers need decision-making support with virtual examination training and home-based patient diagnostics. Finally, ongoing video visit reimbursement should be commensurate with value to the patients' health and well-being. Primary Funding Source: Stanford Department of Medicine and Stanford Health Care.

Problem Many health care systems in the United States are shifting from a fee-for-service reimbursement model to a value-based payment model. To remain competitive, health care administrators must engage frontline clinicians in their efforts to reduce costs and improve patient outcomes. Engaging physicians and other clinicians is challenging, however, as many feel overwhelmed with clinical responsibilities and do not view cost reduction as in their purview. Even if they are willing, providing a direct financial incentive to clinicians to control costs poses ethical and legal challenges. An effective incentive in the current system must motivate clinicians to engage in creative problem solving and mitigate ethical and legal risk. Approach Evidence suggests the most successful behavior change interventions in physicians are multi-faceted and combine intrinsic motivators, such as increased autonomy, with extrinsic motivators, such as access to funding or social recognition. Two academic health centers-the University of Utah Health and Stanford Health Care-have begun experimenting with an alternative value-sharing arrangement. Physician-directed reinvestment is an explicit agreement in which a health care system reinvests a portion of savings attributed to physician-led cost reduction initiatives back into areas of the physician's choosing, such as capital investment, research, or education. Outcomes Both organizations reported similar positive outcomes, including increased engagement from clinicians and administrators, sustained or improved quality of care, reduced costs of care, and benefits from reinvested funds. Many savings opportunities were previously unknown to administrators. Next steps Physician-directed reinvestment appears to effectively engage physicians in ongoing efforts to improve value in health care, although formal evaluation is still needed. This incentive structure may hold promise in other configurations, such as inviting non-physicians to apply as project leaders (clinician-directed reinvestment) and expanding the program to non-academic and ambulatory settings.

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic prompted widespread implementation of telehealth, including in the inpatient setting, with the goals to reduce potential pathogen exposure events and personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization. Nursing workflow adaptations in these novel environments are of particular interest given the association between nursing time at the bedside and patient safety. Understanding the frequency and duration of nurse-patient encounters following the introduction of a novel telehealth platform in the context of COVID-19 may therefore provide insight into downstream impacts on patient safety, pathogen exposure, and PPE utilization. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in nursing workflow relative to prepandemic levels using a real-time locating system (RTLS) following the deployment of inpatient telehealth on a COVID-19 unit. METHODS In March 2020, telehealth was installed in patient rooms in a COVID-19 unit and on movable carts in 3 comparison units. The existing RTLS captured nurse movement during 1 pre- and 5 postpandemic stages (January-December 2020). Change in direct nurse-patient encounters, time spent in patient rooms per encounter, and total time spent with patients per shift relative to baseline were calculated. Generalized linear models assessed difference-in-differences in outcomes between COVID-19 and comparison units. Telehealth adoption was captured and reported at the unit level. RESULTS Change in frequency of encounters and time spent per encounter from baseline differed between the COVID-19 and comparison units at all stages of the pandemic (all PP>.17). The primary COVID-19 unit quickly adopted telehealth technology during the observation period, initiating 15,088 encounters that averaged 6.6 minutes (SD 13.6) each. CONCLUSIONS RTLS movement data suggest that total nursing time at the bedside remained unchanged following the deployment of inpatient telehealth in a COVID-19 unit. Compared to other units with shared mobile telehealth units, the frequency of nurse-patient in-person encounters decreased and the duration lengthened on a COVID-19 unit with in-room telehealth availability, indicating “batched” redistribution of work to maintain total time at bedside relative to prepandemic periods. The simultaneous adoption of telehealth suggests that virtual care was a complement to, rather than a replacement for, in-person care. However, study limitations preclude our ability to draw a causal link between nursing workflow change and telehealth adoption. Thus, further evaluation is needed to determine potential downstream implications on disease transmission, PPE utilization, and patient safety.

Background: Growing demand for medical assistants (MAs) in team-based primary care has led health systems to explore career ladders as one solution to improve MA recruitment and retention. The practical implementation of career ladders remains a challenge for many health systems, and an improved understanding of MA perspectives on career ladders is needed. Methods: Semi-structured focus groups were conducted August to December 2019 in primary care clinics based in three health systems in California and Utah. MA perspectives of existing career ladders, including acceptability, appropriatness and impact on career intentions were discussed, recorded, and qualitatively analyzed.Results: Ten focus groups conducted with 59 participants showed the MA employment decisions were influenced by a number of factors, with opportunities for economic and professional growth predominating. MA career aspirations varied, with “stepping stone” MAs using their role to advance into other health professions and “contented career” MAs hoping to grow within their MA career. Career ladders were acceptable in theory but MAs felt current implementations could benefit from clear and transparent expectations for advancement, consistent recognition of training, experience and work responsibilities, the ability to advance in place, and career counseling. Conclusion: MAs held positive perceptions of career ladders, yet recommended a number of improvements to their practical implementation across three institutions. The emergence of two distinct clusters of MA professional needs and desires suggests an opportunity to further optimize career ladders to provide tailored support to MAs in order to strengthen the healthcare workforce and talent pipeline.

Stacie Vilendrer,1 Alexis Amano,1 Steven M Asch,1,2 Cati Brown-Johnson,1 Amy C Lu,3 Paul Maggio4 1Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA; 2VA Center for Innovation to Implementation, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA; 3Department of Anesthesia, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA; 4Department of Surgery, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USACorrespondence: Stacie Vilendrer, Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1265 Welch Road, Mail Code 5475, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA, Email staciev@Stanford.eduPurpose: Physicians can limit upward trending healthcare costs, yet legal and ethical barriers prevent the use of direct financial incentives to engage physicians in cost-reduction initiatives. Physician-directed reinvestment is an alternative value-sharing arrangement in which a health system reinvests a portion of savings attributed to physician-led cost reduction initiatives back into professional areas of the physicians’ choosing. Formal evaluations of such programs are lacking.Methods: To understand the impact of Stanford Health Care’s physician-directed reinvestment in its first year (2017– 2018) on physician engagement, adherence to program requirements around safety and fund use, and factors facilitating program dissemination, semi-structured qualitative interviews with physician participants, non-participants, and administrative stakeholders were conducted July-November 2019. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed through an implementation science lens. To support contextual analysis of the qualitative data, a directional estimation of the program’s impact on cost from the perspective of the health system was calculated by subtracting annual maintenance cost (derived from interview self-reported time estimates and public salary data) from internal cost accounting of the total savings from first year cohort to obtain annual net benefit, which was then divided by the annual maintenance cost.Results: Physician participation was low compared with the overall physician population (n=14 of approximately 2300 faculty physicians), though 32 qualitative interviews suggested deep engagement across physician participants and adherence to target program requirements. Reinvestment funds activated intrinsic motivators such as autonomy, purpose and inter-professional relations, and extrinsic motivators, such as the direction of resources and external recognition. Ongoing challenges included limited physician awareness of healthcare costs and the need for increased clarity around which projects rise above one’s existing job responsibilities. Administrative data excluding physician time, which was not directly compensated, showed a direct cost savings of $8.9M. This implied an 11-fold return on investment excluding uncompensated physician time.Conclusion: A physician-directed reinvestment program appeared to facilitate latent frontline physician innovation towards value, though additional evaluation is needed to understand its long-term impact.Keywords: physician incentives, professional autonomy, cost savings, motivation, quality improvement, program evaluation, quality indicators, health care, organizational innovation, work engagement

BACKGROUND Telemedicine has been adopted in the inpatient setting to facilitate clinical interactions between on-site clinicians and isolated hospitalized patients. Such remote interactions have the potential to reduce pathogen exposure and use of personal protective equipment but may also pose new safety concerns given prior evidence that isolated patients can receive suboptimal care. Formal evaluations of the use and practical acceptance of inpatient telemedicine among hospitalized patients are lacking. OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate the experience of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inpatient telemedicine introduced as an infection control measure during the pandemic. METHODS We conducted a qualitative evaluation in a COVID-19 designated non–intensive care hospital unit at a large academic health center (Stanford Health Care) from October 2020 through January 2021. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on patient experience, impact on quality of care, communication, and mental health. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants representing diversity across varying demographics until thematic saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS Interviews with 20 hospitalized patients suggested that nonemergency clinical care and bridging to in-person care comprised the majority of inpatient telemedicine use. Nurses were reported to enter the room and call on the tablet far more frequently than physicians, who typically entered the room at least daily. Patients reported broad acceptance of the technology, citing improved convenience and reduced anxiety, but preferred in-person care where possible. Quality of care was believed to be similar to in-person care with the exception of a few patients who wanted more frequent in-person examinations. Ongoing challenges included low audio volume, shifting tablet location, and inconsistent verbal introductions from the clinical team. CONCLUSIONS Patient experiences with inpatient telemedicine were largely favorable. Although most patients expressed a preference for in-person care, telemedicine was acceptable given the circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in technical and care team use may enhance acceptability. Further evaluation is needed to understand the impact of inpatient telemedicine and the optimal balance between in-person and virtual care in the hospital setting.

Background Telemedicine has been adopted in the inpatient setting to facilitate clinical interactions between on-site clinicians and isolated hospitalized patients. Such remote interactions have the potential to reduce pathogen exposure and use of personal protective equipment but may also pose new safety concerns given prior evidence that isolated patients can receive suboptimal care. Formal evaluations of the use and practical acceptance of inpatient telemedicine among hospitalized patients are lacking. Objective We aimed to evaluate the experience of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inpatient telemedicine introduced as an infection control measure during the pandemic. Methods We conducted a qualitative evaluation in a COVID-19 designated non–intensive care hospital unit at a large academic health center (Stanford Health Care) from October 2020 through January 2021. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on patient experience, impact on quality of care, communication, and mental health. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants representing diversity across varying demographics until thematic saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive-deductive approach. Results Interviews with 20 hospitalized patients suggested that nonemergency clinical care and bridging to in-person care comprised the majority of inpatient telemedicine use. Nurses were reported to enter the room and call on the tablet far more frequently than physicians, who typically entered the room at least daily. Patients reported broad acceptance of the technology, citing improved convenience and reduced anxiety, but preferred in-person care where possible. Quality of care was believed to be similar to in-person care with the exception of a few patients who wanted more frequent in-person examinations. Ongoing challenges included low audio volume, shifting tablet location, and inconsistent verbal introductions from the clinical team. Conclusions Patient experiences with inpatient telemedicine were largely favorable. Although most patients expressed a preference for in-person care, telemedicine was acceptable given the circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in technical and care team use may enhance acceptability. Further evaluation is needed to understand the impact of inpatient telemedicine and the optimal balance between in-person and virtual care in the hospital setting.

Background Growing demand for medical assistants (MAs) in team-based primary care has led health systems to explore career ladders based on expanded MA responsibilities as a solution to improve MA recruitment and retention. However, the practical implementation of career ladders remains a challenge for many health systems. In this study, we aim to understand MA career aspirations and their alignment with available advancement opportunities. Methods Semi-structured focus groups were conducted August to December 2019 in primary care clinics based in three health systems in California and Utah. MA perspectives of career aspirations and their alignment with existing career ladders were discussed, recorded, and qualitatively analyzed. Results Ten focus groups conducted with 59 participants revealed three major themes: mixed perceptions of expanded MA roles with concern over increased responsibility without commensurate increase in pay; divergent career aspirations among MAs not addressed by existing career ladders; and career ladder implementation challenges including opaque advancement requirements and lack of consistency across practice settings. Conclusion MAs held positive perceptions of career ladders in theory, yet recommended a number of improvements to their practical implementation across three institutions including improving clarity and consistency around requirements for advancement and matching compensation to job responsibilities. The emergence of two distinct clusters of MA professional needs and desires suggests an opportunity to further optimize career ladders to provide tailored support to MAs in order to strengthen the healthcare workforce and talent pipeline.

BACKGROUND Telemedicine has been deployed by health care systems in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to enable health care workers to provide remote care for both outpatients and inpatients. Although it is reasonable to suspect telemedicine visits limit unnecessary personal contact and thus decrease the risk of infection transmission, the impact of the use of such technology on clinician workflows in the emergency department is unknown. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to use a real-time locating system (RTLS) to evaluate the impact of a new telemedicine platform, which permitted clinicians located outside patient rooms to interact with patients who were under isolation precautions in the emergency department, on in-person interaction between health care workers and patients. METHODS A pre-post analysis was conducted using a badge-based RTLS platform to collect movement data including entrances and duration of stay within patient rooms of the emergency department for nursing and physician staff. Movement data was captured between March 2, 2020, the date of the first patient screened for COVID-19 in the emergency department, and April 20, 2020. A new telemedicine platform was deployed on March 29, 2020. The number of entrances and duration of in-person interactions per patient encounter, adjusted for patient length of stay, were obtained for pre- and postimplementation phases and compared with t tests to determine statistical significance. RESULTS There were 15,741 RTLS events linked to 2662 encounters for patients screened for COVID-19. There was no significant change in the number of in-person interactions between the pre- and postimplementation phases for both nurses (5.7 vs 7.0 entrances per patient, P=.07) and physicians (1.3 vs 1.5 entrances per patient, P=.12). Total duration of in-person interactions did not change (56.4 vs 55.2 minutes per patient, P=.74) despite significant increases in telemedicine videoconference frequency (0.6 vs 1.3 videoconferences per patient, PP CONCLUSIONS Telemedicine was rapidly adopted with the intent of minimizing pathogen exposure to health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet RTLS movement data did not reveal significant changes for in-person interactions between staff and patients under investigation for COVID-19 infection. Additional research is needed to better understand how telemedicine technology may be better incorporated into emergency departments to improve workflows for frontline health care clinicians.

BACKGROUND The early identification of clinical deterioration in patients in hospital units can decrease mortality rates and improve other patient outcomes; yet, this remains a challenge in busy hospital settings. Artificial intelligence (AI), in the form of predictive models, is increasingly being explored for its potential to assist clinicians in predicting clinical deterioration. OBJECTIVE Using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 model, this study aims to assess whether an AI-enabled work system improves clinical outcomes, describe how the clinical deterioration index (CDI) predictive model and associated work processes are implemented, and define the emergent properties of the AI-enabled work system that mediate the observed clinical outcomes. METHODS This study will use a mixed methods approach that is informed by the SEIPS 2.0 model to assess both processes and outcomes and focus on how physician-nurse clinical teams are affected by the presence of AI. The intervention will be implemented in hospital medicine units based on a modified stepped wedge design featuring three stages over 11 months—stage 0 represents a baseline period 10 months before the implementation of the intervention; stage 1 introduces the CDI predictions to physicians only and triggers a physician-driven workflow; and stage 2 introduces the CDI predictions to the multidisciplinary team, which includes physicians and nurses, and triggers a nurse-driven workflow. Quantitative data will be collected from the electronic health record for the clinical processes and outcomes. Interviews will be conducted with members of the multidisciplinary team to understand how the intervention changes the existing work system and processes. The SEIPS 2.0 model will provide an analytic framework for a mixed methods analysis. RESULTS A pilot period for the study began in December 2020, and the results are expected in mid-2022. CONCLUSIONS This protocol paper proposes an approach to evaluation that recognizes the importance of assessing both processes and outcomes to understand how a multifaceted AI-enabled intervention affects the complex team-based work of identifying and managing clinical deterioration. CLINICALTRIAL INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/27532

Purpose: While COVID-19 has upended lives, it has also catalyzed innovation with potential to advance health delivery. Yet, we know little about how the delivery system, and primary care in particular, has responded and how this has impacted vulnerable patients. We aimed to understand the impact of COVID-19 on primary care practice sites and their vulnerable patients and to identify explanations for variation. Approach: We developed and administered a survey to practice managers and physician leaders from 173 primary care practice sites, October-November 2020. We report and graphically depict results from univariate analysis and examine potential explanations for variation in practices' process innovations in response to COVID-19 by assessing bivariate relationships between seven dependent variables and four independent variables. Findings: Among 96 (55.5%) respondents, primary care practice sites on average took more safety (8.5 of 12) than financial (2.5 of 17) precautions in response to COVID-19. Practice sites varied in their efforts to protect patients with vulnerabilities, providing care initially postponed, and experience with virtual visits. Financial risk, practice size, practitioner age, and emergency preparedness explained variation in primary care practices' process innovations. Many practice sites plan to sustain virtual visits, dependent mostly on patient and provider preference and continued reimbursement. Value: While findings indicate rapid and substantial innovation, conditions must enable primary care practice sites to build on and sustain innovations, to support care for vulnerable populations, including those with multiple chronic conditions and socio-economic barriers to health, and to prepare primary care for future emergencies.

PURPOSE: Medical assistants (MAs) have seen their roles expand as a result of team-based primary care models. Unlike their physician counterparts, MAs rarely receive financial incentives as a part of their compensation. This exploratory study aims to understand MA acceptability of financial incentives and perceived MA control over common population health measures. METHODS: We conducted semistructured focus groups between August and December of 2019 across 10 clinics affiliated with 3 institutions in California and Utah. MAs’ perceptions of experienced and hypothetical financial incentives, their potential influence on workflow processes, and perceived levels of control over population health measures were discussed, recorded, and qualitatively analyzed for emerging themes. Perceived levels of control were further quantified using a Likert survey; measures were grouped into factors representing vaccinations, and workflow completed in the same day or multiple days (multiday). Mean scores for each factor were compared using repeated 1-way ANOVA with Tukey-Kramer adjustment. RESULTS: MAs reported little direct experience with financial incentives. They indicated that a hypothetical bonus representing 2% to 3% of their average annual base pay would be acceptable and influential in improving consistent performance during patient rooming workflow. MAs reported having greater perceived control over vaccinations (P

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for first responders (eg, police, fire, and emergency medical services) and nonmedical essential workers (eg, workers in food, transportation, and other industries). Health systems may be uniquely suited to support these workers given their medical expertise, and mobile apps can reach local communities despite social distancing requirements. Formal evaluation of real-world mobile app–based interventions is lacking. OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate the adoption, acceptability, and appropriateness of an academic medical center–sponsored app-based intervention (COVID-19 Guide App) designed to support access of first responders and essential workers to COVID-19 information and testing services. We also sought to better understand the COVID-19–related needs of these workers early in the pandemic. METHODS To understand overall community adoption, views and download data of the COVID-19 Guide App were described. To understand the adoption, appropriateness, and acceptability of the app and the unmet needs of workers, semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone, by video, and in person with first responders and essential workers in the San Francisco Bay Area who were recruited through purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling. Interview transcripts and field notes were qualitatively analyzed and presented using an implementation outcomes framework. RESULTS From its launch in April 2020 to September 2020, the app received 8262 views from unique devices and 6640 downloads (80.4% conversion rate, 0.61% adoption rate across the Bay Area). App acceptability was mixed among the 17 first responders interviewed and high among the 10 essential workers interviewed. Select themes included the need for personalized and accurate information, access to testing, and securing personal safety. First responders faced additional challenges related to interprofessional coordination and a “culture of heroism” that could both protect against and exacerbate health vulnerability. CONCLUSIONS First responders and essential workers both reported challenges related to obtaining accurate information, testing services, and other resources. A mobile app intervention has the potential to combat these challenges through the provision of disease-specific information and access to testing services but may be most effective if delivered as part of a larger ecosystem of support. Differentiated interventions that acknowledge and address the divergent needs between first responders and non–first responder essential workers may optimize acceptance and adoption.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for first responders (eg, police, fire, and emergency medical services) and nonmedical essential workers (eg, workers in food, transportation, and other industries). Health systems may be uniquely suited to support these workers given their medical expertise, and mobile apps can reach local communities despite social distancing requirements. Formal evaluation of real-world mobile app–based interventions is lacking. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the adoption, acceptability, and appropriateness of an academic medical center–sponsored app-based intervention (COVID-19 Guide App) designed to support access of first responders and essential workers to COVID-19 information and testing services. We also sought to better understand the COVID-19–related needs of these workers early in the pandemic. Methods: To understand overall community adoption, views and download data of the COVID-19 Guide App were described. To understand the adoption, appropriateness, and acceptability of the app and the unmet needs of workers, semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone, by video, and in person with first responders and essential workers in the San Francisco Bay Area who were recruited through purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling. Interview transcripts and field notes were qualitatively analyzed and presented using an implementation outcomes framework. Results: From its launch in April 2020 to September 2020, the app received 8262 views from unique devices and 6640 downloads (80.4% conversion rate, 0.61% adoption rate across the Bay Area). App acceptability was mixed among the 17 first responders interviewed and high among the 10 essential workers interviewed. Select themes included the need for personalized and accurate information, access to testing, and securing personal safety. First responders faced additional challenges related to interprofessional coordination and a “culture of heroism” that could both protect against and exacerbate health vulnerability. Conclusions: First responders and essential workers both reported challenges related to obtaining accurate information, testing services, and other resources. A mobile app intervention has the potential to combat these challenges through the provision of disease-specific information and access to testing services but may be most effective if delivered as part of a larger ecosystem of support. Differentiated interventions that acknowledge and address the divergent needs between first responders and non–first responder essential workers may optimize acceptance and adoption.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic created new challenges to delivering safe and effective health care while minimizing virus exposure among staff and patients without COVID-19. Health systems worldwide have moved quickly to implement telemedicine in diverse settings to reduce infection, but little is understood about how best to connect patients who are acutely ill with nearby clinical team members, even in the next room. Objective To inform these efforts, this paper aims to provide an early example of inpatient telemedicine implementation and its perceived acceptability and effectiveness. Methods Using purposive sampling, this study conducted 15 semistructured interviews with nurses (5/15, 33%), attending physicians (5/15, 33%), and resident physicians (5/15, 33%) on a single COVID-19 unit within Stanford Health Care to evaluate implementation outcomes and perceived effectiveness of inpatient telemedicine. Semistructured interview protocols and qualitative analysis were framed around the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework, and key themes were identified using a rapid analytic process and consensus approach. Results All clinical team members reported wide reach of inpatient telemedicine, with some use for almost all patients with COVID-19. Inpatient telemedicine was perceived to be effective in reducing COVID-19 exposure and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) without significantly compromising quality of care. Physician workflows remained relatively stable, as most standard clinical activities were conducted via telemedicine following the initial intake examination, though resident physicians reported reduced educational opportunities given limited opportunities to conduct physical exams. Nurse workflows required significant adaptations to cover nonnursing duties, such as food delivery and facilitating technology connections for patients and physicians alike. Perceived patient impact included consistent care quality, with some considerations around privacy. Reported challenges included patient–clinical team communication and personal connection with the patient, perceptions of patient isolation, ongoing technical challenges, and certain aspects of the physical exam. Conclusions Clinical team members reported inpatient telemedicine encounters to be acceptable and effective in reducing COVID-19 exposure and PPE use. Nurses adapted their workflows more than physicians in order to implement the new technology and bore a higher burden of in-person care and technical support. Recommendations for improved inpatient telemedicine use include information technology support and training, increased technical functionality, and remote access for the clinical team.

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic created new challenges to delivering safe and effective health care while minimizing virus exposure among staff and patients without COVID-19. Health systems worldwide have moved quickly to implement telemedicine in diverse settings to reduce infection, but little is understood about how best to connect patients who are acutely ill with nearby clinical team members, even in the next room. OBJECTIVE To inform these efforts, this paper aims to provide an early example of inpatient telemedicine implementation and its perceived acceptability and effectiveness. METHODS Using purposive sampling, this study conducted 15 semistructured interviews with nurses (5/15, 33%), attending physicians (5/15, 33%), and resident physicians (5/15, 33%) on a single COVID-19 unit within Stanford Health Care to evaluate implementation outcomes and perceived effectiveness of inpatient telemedicine. Semistructured interview protocols and qualitative analysis were framed around the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework, and key themes were identified using a rapid analytic process and consensus approach. RESULTS All clinical team members reported wide reach of inpatient telemedicine, with some use for almost all patients with COVID-19. Inpatient telemedicine was perceived to be effective in reducing COVID-19 exposure and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) without significantly compromising quality of care. Physician workflows remained relatively stable, as most standard clinical activities were conducted via telemedicine following the initial intake examination, though resident physicians reported reduced educational opportunities given limited opportunities to conduct physical exams. Nurse workflows required significant adaptations to cover nonnursing duties, such as food delivery and facilitating technology connections for patients and physicians alike. Perceived patient impact included consistent care quality, with some considerations around privacy. Reported challenges included patient–clinical team communication and personal connection with the patient, perceptions of patient isolation, ongoing technical challenges, and certain aspects of the physical exam. CONCLUSIONS Clinical team members reported inpatient telemedicine encounters to be acceptable and effective in reducing COVID-19 exposure and PPE use. Nurses adapted their workflows more than physicians in order to implement the new technology and bore a higher burden of in-person care and technical support. Recommendations for improved inpatient telemedicine use include information technology support and training, increased technical functionality, and remote access for the clinical team.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 provided the impetus for unprecedented adoption of telemedicine. This study aimed to understand video visit adoption by plastic surgery providers; and patient and surgeon perceptions about its efficacy, value, accessibility, and long-term viability. A secondary aim was to develop the proposed ‘Triage Tool for Video Visits in Plastic Surgery’ to help determine visit video eligibility. Methods This mixed-methods evaluation assessed provider-level scheduling data from the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Stanford Health Care to quantify telemedicine adoption and semi-structured phone interviews with patients (n = 20) and surgeons (n = 10) to explore stakeholder perspectives on video visits. Results During the 13-week period after the local stay-at-home orders due to coronavirus disease 2019, 21.4% of preoperative visits and 45.5% of postoperative visits were performed via video. Video visits were considered acceptable by patients and surgeons in plastic surgery in terms of quality of care but were limited by the inability to perform a physical examination. Interviewed clinicians reported that long-term viability needs to be centered around technology (eg, connection, video quality, etc) and physical examinations. Our findings informed a proposed triage tool to determine the appropriateness of video visits for individual patients that incorporates visit type, anesthesia, case, surgeon’s role, and patient characteristics. Conclusion Video technology has the potential to facilitate and improve preoperative and postoperative patient care in plastic surgery but the following components are needed: patient education on taking high-quality photos; standardized clinical guidelines for conducting video visits; and an algorithm-assisted triage tool to support scheduling.

Objective Employers affect the health of employees and their families through work environments and employee benefits. We sought to understand employer decisions around those topics. Methods Interviews with 21 executives from diverse, purposely-sampled, progressive companies with transcripts analyzed using inductive and deductive methods. Results Companies often viewed keeping employees healthy primarily as a means to profitability rather than an end in itself and rationalized stressful workplaces as necessary and non-changeable. Many possible actions including job redesign and changing benefits administrators were seen as infeasible. Even large, resource-rich organizations were strikingly non-agentic. Conclusions Companies seem less committed to the goal of increasing employee health than they claim or than they should be, given the significant relationship between employee health and economic performance, and see external and internal barriers to improving health that are often self-created.

The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has skyrocketed, as providers don masks, glasses, and gowns to protect their eyes, noses, and mouths from COVID-19. Yet these same facial features express human individuality, and are crucial to nonverbal communication. Isolated ICU patients may develop "post intensive-care syndrome," which mimics PTSD with sometimes debilitating consequences. While far from a complete solution, PPE Portraits (disposable portrait picture stickers - 4" × 5") have the potential to humanize care. Preparing for a larger effectiveness evaluation on patient and provider experience, we collected initial qualitative implementation insights during Spring 2020's chaotic surge preparation. Front-line providers reported more comfort with patient interactions while wearing PPE Portraits: "It makes it feel less like a disaster zone [for the patient]." A brief pilot showed signs of significant adoption: a participating physician requested PPE Portraits at their clinic, shift nurses had taken PPE Portraits with them to inpatient services, and masked medical assistant team-members requested PPE Portraits to wear over scrubs. We believe PPE Portraits may support patient care and health, and even potentially healthcare team function and provider wellness. While we await data on these effects, we hope hospitals can use our findings to speed their own implementation testing.

To reduce pathogen exposure, conserve personal protective equipment, and facilitate health care personnel work participation in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, three affiliated institutions rapidly and independently deployed inpatient telemedicine programs during March 2020. We describe key features and early learnings of these programs in the hospital setting.Relevant clinical and operational leadership from an academic medical center, pediatric teaching hospital, and safety net county health system met to share learnings shortly after deploying inpatient telemedicine. A summative analysis of their learnings was re-circulated for approval.All three institutions faced pressure to urgently standup new telemedicine systems while still maintaining secure information exchange. Differences across patient demographics and technological capabilities led to variation in solution design, though key technical considerations were similar. Rapid deployment in each system relied on readily available consumer-grade technology, given the existing familiarity to patients and clinicians and minimal infrastructure investment. Preliminary data from the academic medical center over one month suggested positive adoption with 631 inpatient video calls lasting an average (standard deviation) of 16.5 minutes (19.6) based on inclusion criteria.The threat of an imminent surge of COVID-19 patients drove three institutions to rapidly develop inpatient telemedicine solutions. Concurrently, federal and state regulators temporarily relaxed restrictions that would have previously limited these efforts. Strategic direction from executive leadership, leveraging off-the-shelf hardware, vendor engagement, and clinical workflow integration facilitated rapid deployment.The rapid deployment of inpatient telemedicine is feasible across diverse settings as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background In the Tanga District of coastal Tanzania, malaria is one of the primary causes of mortality for children under the age of five. While some children are treated with malaria medications in biomedical facilities, as the World Health Organization recommends, others receive home-care or treatment from traditional healers. Recognition of malaria is difficult because symptoms can range from fever with uncomplicated malaria to convulsions with severe malaria. This study explores why caregivers in the Tanga District of Tanzania pursue particular courses of action to deal with malaria in their children. Methods Qualitative data were collected through interviews with three samples: female caregivers of children under five (N = 61), medical practitioners (N = 28), and traditional healers (N = 18) in urban, peri-urban, and rural areas. The female caregiver sample is intentionally stratified to reflect the greater population of the Tanga District in level of education, marital status, gender of household head, religion, and tribal group affiliation. Qualitative data were counted, coded and analysed using NVivo7 software. Results Results indicate that a variety of factors influence treatment choice, including socio-cultural beliefs about malaria symptoms, associations with spiritual affliction requiring traditional healing, knowledge of malaria, and fear of certain anti-malaria treatment procedures. Most notably, some caregivers identified convulsions as a spiritual condition, unrelated to malaria. While nearly all caregivers reported attending biomedical facilities to treat children with fever (N = 60/61), many caregivers stated that convulsions are best treated by traditional healers (N = 26/61). Qualitative interviews with medical practitioners and traditional healers confirmed this belief. Conclusion Results offer insight into current trends in malaria management and have implications in healthcare policy, educational campaigns, and the importance of integrating traditional and biomedical approaches.