36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perceptions of Telehealth vs In-Person Visits Among Older Adults With Advanced Kidney Disease, Care Partners, and Clinicians

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This qualitative study identifies patient, care partner, and clinicians’ perceptions of the patient-centeredness, benefits, and drawbacks of telehealth compared with in-person visits.

          Key Points

          Question

          How are telehealth encounters perceived by older adults with chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians?

          Findings

          In this qualitative study, involving 60 interviews conducted during 2020, lower satisfaction was associated with telehealth among older patients with lower socioeconomic status and among patients identifying as Black, Hispanic, and Native American. Drawbacks to telehealth included care quality concerns because of limited physical examination and laboratory tests and loss of social connection, while benefits included convenience, greater care partner engagement, and clinicians’ understanding of patients’ home environment.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that while telehealth reduces barriers to care for some older adults, greater resources are needed to support many older adults with chronic illness, including limited English proficiency, hearing loss, and those with limited access to internet and technology.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Telehealth has been posited as a cost-effective means for improving access to care for persons with chronic conditions, including kidney disease. Perceptions of telehealth among older patients with chronic illness, their care partners, and clinicians are largely unknown but are critical to successful telehealth use and expansion efforts.

          Objective

          To identify patient, care partner, and nephrologists’ perceptions of the patient-centeredness, benefits, drawbacks of telehealth compared to in-person visits.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This qualitative study used semistructured interviews conducted from August to December 2020 with purposively sampled patients (aged 70 years or older, chronic kidney disease stages 4 to 5), care partners, and clinicians in Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Maine; and San Diego, California.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Participants described telehealth experiences, including factors contributing to and impeding engagement, satisfaction, and quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data.

          Results

          Of 60 interviews, 19 (32%) were with clinicians, 30 (50%) with patients, and 11 (18%) with care partners; 16 clinicians (84%) were nephrologists; 17 patient participants (43%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 38 (67%) were women. Four overarching themes characterized telehealth’s benefits and drawbacks for patient-centered care among older, chronically ill adults: inconsistent quality of care, patient experience and engagement, loss of connection and mistrust (eg, challenges discussing bad news), and disparities with accessing telehealth. Although telehealth improved convenience and care partner engagement, participants expressed concerns about clinical effectiveness and limitations of virtual physical examinations and potentially widening disparities in access. Many participants shared concerns about harms to the patient-clinician relationship, limited ability to comfort patients in virtual settings, and reduced patient trust.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Older patients, care partners, and kidney clinicians (ie, nephrologists and physician assistants) shared divergent views of patient-centered telehealth care, especially its clinical effectiveness, patient experience, access to care, and clinician-patient relationship. Understanding older patients’ and kidney clinicians’ perceptions of telehealth elucidate barriers that should be addressed to promote high-quality care and telehealth use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Patient Satisfaction With Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Cohort Study

            Background New York City was the international epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care providers responded by rapidly transitioning from in-person to video consultations. Telemedicine (ie, video visits) is a potentially disruptive innovation; however, little is known about patient satisfaction with this emerging alternative to the traditional clinical encounter. Objective This study aimed to determine if patient satisfaction differs between video and in-person visits. Methods In this retrospective observational cohort study, we analyzed 38,609 Press Ganey patient satisfaction survey outcomes from clinic encounters (620 video visits vs 37,989 in-person visits) at a single-institution, urban, quaternary academic medical center in New York City for patients aged 18 years, from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020. Time was categorized as pre–COVID-19 and COVID-19 (before vs after March 4, 2020). Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and multivariable linear regression were used for hypothesis testing and statistical modeling, respectively. Results We experienced an 8729% increase in video visit utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period last year. Video visit Press Ganey scores were significantly higher than in-person visits (94.9% vs 92.5%; P<.001). In adjusted analyses, video visits (parameter estimate [PE] 2.18; 95% CI 1.20-3.16) and the COVID-19 period (PE 0.55; 95% CI 0.04-1.06) were associated with higher patient satisfaction. Younger age (PE –2.05; 95% CI –2.66 to –1.22), female gender (PE –0.73; 95% CI –0.96 to –0.50), and new visit type (PE –0.75; 95% CI –1.00 to –0.49) were associated with lower patient satisfaction. Conclusions Patient satisfaction with video visits is high and is not a barrier toward a paradigm shift away from traditional in-person clinic visits. Future research comparing other clinic visit quality indicators is needed to guide and implement the widespread adoption of telemedicine.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A review of Internet use among older adults

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                6 December 2021
                December 2021
                6 December 2021
                : 4
                : 12
                : e2137193
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research on Ethics, Aging, and Community Health (REACH Lab), Medford, Massachusetts
                [2 ]Departments of Occupational Therapy and Community Health, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
                [3 ]William B. Schwartz MD Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
                [5 ]Center for Translational Metabolism and Health, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
                [6 ]Division of Nephrology, Veterans’ Affairs Healthcare System, San Diego, California
                [7 ]University of California, San Diego
                [8 ]Department of Surgery-Division of Transplantation, and Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research, and Center for Bioethics and Humanities, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
                [9 ]Piedmont Transplant Institute, Atlanta, Georgia
                [10 ]Department of Public Health & Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Massachusetts
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: October 4, 2021.
                Published: December 6, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.37193
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Ladin K et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Keren Ladin, PhD, MSc, Associate Professor, Departments of Occupational Therapy and Community Health, Tufts University, Director, Research on Ethics, Aging, and Community Health (REACH Lab), 574 Boston Ave, Room 216, Medford, MA 02155 ( keren.ladin@ 123456tufts.edu ).
                Author Contributions : Dr Ladin had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Ladin, Porteny, Perugini, Gonzales, Aufort, Wong, Rossi, Koch-Weser, Weiner.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Ladin, Porteny, Perugini, Gonzales, Aufort, Levine, Wong, Weiner.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Ladin, Porteny, Perugini, Aufort, Wong, Isakova, Rifkin, Gordon, Rossi, Koch-Weser, Weiner.
                Statistical analysis: Ladin, Porteny, Levine.
                Obtained funding: Ladin, Wong, Weiner.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Ladin, Porteny, Perugini, Aufort, Wong, Isakova, Gordon.
                Supervision: Ladin, Porteny, Wong, Gordon, Rossi, Weiner.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Isakova reported receiving personal fees from Akebia and consulting honorariums from Akebia Therapeutics, Kyowa Kirin, and LifeSci Capital outside the submitted work. Dr Weiner reported receiving consulting honoraria from Akebia Therapeutics, Tricida, and Janssen. Dr Ladin reported receiving grants from Greenwall Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr Weiner reported being the medical director of Clinical Research for Dialysis Clinic, Inc., a not-for-profit provider of kidney care, with support paid to Tufts Medical Center. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This project was supported by grant CDR-2017C1-6297 from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders did not influence the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The views presented in this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the PCORI, its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee.
                Additional Contributions: We appreciate the outstanding research assistance of Lucy Ren, BA (Tufts Medical Center); Olivia Bronzi, BA (Tufts Medical Center), Lexi Sewall, BS (Maine Medical Center Research Institute); Jack Degnan, MPH (University of California, San Diego); and Brianna Kuramitsu MSW, LSW (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine). The team greatly appreciates the participation and input of patients, care partners, and clinicians who participated in this study.
                Article
                zoi211051
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.37193
                8649833
                34870680
                20c78649-8f74-49e5-82d7-4b12089b7e2d
                Copyright 2021 Ladin K et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 27 July 2021
                : 4 October 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Geriatrics

                Comments

                Comment on this article