Explore the vast range of titles available.

It is currently unclear how the shift towards virtual care during the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic may have impacted chronic disease management at a population level. The goals of our study were to provide a description of the levels of use of virtual care services relative to in-person care in patients with chronic disease across Ontario, Canada and to describe levels of healthcare utilization in low versus high virtual care users. We used linked health administrative data to conduct a population-based, repeated cross-sectional study of all ambulatory patient visits in Ontario, Canada (January 1, 2018 to January 16, 2021). Further stratifications were also completed to examine patients with COPD, heart failure, asthma, hypertension, diabetes, mental illness, and angina. Patients were classified as low (max 1 virtual care visit) vs. high virtual care users. A time-series analysis was done using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) modelling on weekly hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and diagnostic tests. The use of virtual care increased across all chronic disease patient populations. Virtual care constituted at least half of the total care in all conditions. Both low and high virtual care user groups experienced a statistically significant reduction in hospitalizations and laboratory testing at the start of the pandemic. Hospitalization volumes increased again only among the high users, while testing increased in both groups. Outpatient visits among high users remained unaffected by the pandemic but dropped in low users. The decrease of in-person care during the pandemic was accompanied by an increase in virtual care, which ultimately allowed patients with chronic disease to return to the same visit rate as they had before the onset of the pandemic. Virtual care was adopted across various chronic conditions, but the relative adoption of virtual care varied by condition with highest rates seen in mental health.

This study reports on physicians' experiences with chronic pain management. For over a decade prescription opioids have been a primary treatment for chronic pain in North America. However, the current opioid epidemic has complicated long-standing practices for chronic pain management which historically involved prescribing pain medication. Caring for patients with chronic pain occurs within a context in which a growing proportion of patients suffer from chronic rather than acute conditions alongside rising social inequities. Our team undertook an ethnographic approach known as institutional ethnography in the province of Ontario, Canada in order to explore the social organization of chronic pain management from the standpoint of primary care physicians. This paper reports on a subset of this study data, specifically interviews with 19 primary care clinicians and 8 nurses supplemented by 40 hours of observations. The clinicians in our sample were largely primary care physicians and nurses working in urban, rural and Northern settings. In their reflections on providing care for patients with chronic pain, many providers describe being most challenged by the work involved in helping patients who also struggled with poverty, mental health and addiction. These frustrations were often complicated by concerns that they could lose their license for inappropriate prescribing, thus shifting their work from providing treatment and care to policing their patients for malingering and opioid abuse. Our findings show that care providers find the treatment of patients with chronic pain-especially those patients also experiencing poverty-to be challenging at best, and at worst frustrating and overwhelming. In many instances, their narratives suggested experiences of depersonalization, loss of job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion in relation to providing care for these patients, key dimensions of burnout. In essence, the work that they performed in relation to their patients' social rather than medical needs seems to contribute to these experiences. Their experiences were further exacerbated by the fact that restricting and reducing opioid dosing in patients with chronic pain has become a major focus of care provision.

Digital tools have shown great potential to enhance health services’ capacity to achieve the goals of the triple aim (enhance patient experience, improve health outcomes, and control or reduce costs), but their actual impact remains variable. In this commentary, we suggest that shifting from a perspective focused on “implementing” new digital tools in health care settings toward one focused on “service design” will help teams execute more successful digital technology adoption projects. We present value proposition design (VPD) as a service design strategy requiring that stakeholders are brutally honest in determining the value of a new digital tool for their everyday work. Incorporating a perspective focused on how the value proposition of a technology is understood by each team member, and implications for their work routines, will help project teams to better understand how services can be reinvented during technology adoption initiatives. We present the simple heuristic [Tool+Team+Routine] as a reminder of the central considerations that make up a service design initiative, and present an illustrative case scenario of designing the use of a digital care coordination platform in an actual digital technology adoption project. We conclude by outlining two important challenges that need to be addressed to advance service design approaches to technology adoption in health care.

The need to support innovation in health care delivery was prompted by payment reforms and access to digital tools and has been accelerated by the shift to virtual care as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Prior to the pandemic, a growing number of health systems set up innovation centers to focus on creating new services and exploring new business models relevant to value-based care. This is distinct from process improvement or implementation science, and often needs a different set of incentives to succeed within a large organization. We used a national survey to identify a diverse sample of innovation centers, and interviewed leaders to describe their aims, organizational structures, and activities. They all aim to improve patient outcomes and experience while reducing costs, but their strategic focus may differ. The centers also vary in their reporting structure, how they build internal capacity, and how they measure success. We highlight the range of strategies through examples of projects that improve quality, reduce costs, and generate new revenue. While the optimal forms and impact of innovation centers are still emerging, the fiscal pressures and the rapid uptake of digital technologies present opportunities for the redesign of health services in the postpandemic era. The experiences of these centers illustrate a set of approaches to increase any organization’s capacity for innovation.

Virtual care use increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of that shift on patient and provider experiences is unclear. We evaluated patient and provider experiences with virtual visits across an academic, ambulatory hospital in Toronto, Canada and assessed predictors of positive experience with virtual care. During the study period, 253 patients (mean age 45.1, SD 15.6 years) completed 517 video visit surveys, and 147 patients (mean age 41.6, SD 16.4 years) completed 209 telephone visit surveys. A total of 75 and 94 providers completed the survey in June 2020 and June 2021, respectively. On a scale from 1 to 10 regarding likelihood to recommend virtual care to others, fewer providers rated a score of 8 or above compared with patients (providers: 62/94, 66% for video and 49/94, 52% for telephone; patients: 415/517, 80% for video and 150/209, 72% for telephone). Patients of non-White ethnicity had lower odds of rating a high score of 9 or 10 compared with White patients (odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.99). Patient experiences with virtual care were generally positive, but provider experiences were less so. Findings suggest potential differences in patient experience by ethnicity, warranting further investigation into equity concerns with virtual care.

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed an uptake in virtual care. However, the rapid shift left unanswered questions about the impact of virtual care on the quality of primary care and its appropriateness and effectiveness. Moving forward, health care providers require guidance on how best to use virtual care to support high-quality primary care. This study aims to identify and summarize clinical studies and systematic reviews comparing virtual care and in-person care in primary care, with a focus on how virtual care can support key clinical functions such as triage, medical assessment and treatment, counseling, and rehabilitation in addition to the management of particular conditions. We conducted a scoping review following an established framework. Comprehensive searches were performed across the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Emcare, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Other well-known websites were also searched. PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines were followed. Articles were selected by considering article type, language, care provided, intervention, mode of care delivery, and sample size. A total of 13,667 articles were screened, and 219 (1.6%) articles representing 170 studies were included in the review. Of the 170 studies included, 142 (83.5%) were primary studies, and 28 (16.5%) were systematic reviews. The studies were grouped by functions of primary care, including triage (16/170, 9.4%), medical assessment and treatment of particular conditions (63/170, 37.1%), rehabilitation (17/170, 10%), and counseling (74/170, 43.5%). The studies suggested that many primary care functions could appropriately be conducted virtually. Virtual rehabilitation was comparable to in-person care and virtual counseling was found to be equally effective as in-person counseling in several contexts. Some of the studies indicated that many general primary care issues could be resolved virtually without the need for any additional follow-up, but data on diagnostic accuracy were limited. Virtual triage is clinically appropriate and led to fewer in-person visits, but overall impact on efficiency was unclear. Many studies found that virtual care was more convenient for many patients and provided care equivalent to in-person care for a range of conditions. Studies comparing appropriate antibiotic prescription between virtual and in-person care found variable impact by clinical condition. Studies on virtual chronic disease management observed variability in impact on overall disease control and clinical outcomes. Virtual care can be safe and appropriate for triage and seems equivalent to in-person care for counseling and some rehabilitation services; however, further studies are needed to determine specific contexts or medical conditions where virtual care is appropriate for diagnosis, management outcomes, and other functions of primary care. Virtual care needs to be adapted to fit a new set of patient and provider workflows to demonstrate positive impacts on experience, outcomes, and costs of care.

While the volume of virtual visits increased with the COVID-19 pandemic, little is still known regarding the quality of virtual visits. Furthermore, there is limited guidance on how best to evaluate the quality of virtual care initiatives. The objective of this study was to curate a balanced set of quality indicators grounded in the Quintuple Aim quality framework and the National Academy of Medicine domains of quality, including sustainability, to monitor the quality of virtual care in ambulatory environments. Phase 1 involved curating a list of ambulatory virtual care quality indicators from published and grey literature, along with knowledge user feedback generated through a pre-Delphi survey; these indicators were mapped and categorized to the Quintuple Aim and National Academy of Medicine (NAM) Quality Domains. In phase 2, a 19-member pan-Canadian panel was convened as part of a 3-round modified Delphi panel process to rate and rank the quality indicators. The panel included clinicians, individuals with lived experience with the health care system, policy makers, academics, and administrators. Panelists rated indicators using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality measure attributes on a 9-point Likert scale in round 1, followed by a virtual Delphi panel meeting to discuss indicators before round 2 of re-rating, then a final round 3 of ranking which assessed the importance of indicators within each quality domain and subdomain. To address gaps in the literature, novel quality indicators of virtual care were identified and discussed in panel discussions, patient group consultations, and a pre-Delphi survey. For indicator advancement during the rating exercises, 75% or more of the panelists' responses in the top tertile (scores of 7-9) with a median composite score of 7 or greater was required. There were 140 quality indicators identified in the literature which progressed through the 3 Delphi panel rounds. There was minimal attrition among Delphi panel members (17/19, 89% participated in all 3 rounds). After round 3, 25 indicators were included in the final scorecard. Aligned with the Quintuple Aim, there are 13 quality indicators on patient experience, 6 on provider experience, 2 on population health, 2 on health equity, and 2 on health system costs. A balanced set of 25 quality indicators of ambulatory virtual care was developed based on literature and consensus building from knowledge users across the health system. This curated set of indicators will support more comprehensive evaluations of virtual care. Organizations can use the set of indicators as part of a scorecard to compare across jurisdictions, identify priority areas, and ensure their virtual care initiatives are delivering high-quality care based on multiple domains of quality.

The increased use of telemedicine to provide virtual outpatient visits during the pandemic has led to concerns about potential increased emergency department (ED) admissions and outpatient service use prior to such admissions. We examined the frequency of virtual visits use prior to ED admissions and characterized the patients with prior virtual visit use and the physicians who provided these outpatient visits. We conducted a retrospective, population-based, cross-sectional analysis using linked health administrative data in Ontario, Canada to identify patients who had an ED admission between July 1 and September 30, 2021 and patients with an ED admissions during the same period in 2019. We grouped patients based on their use of outpatient services in the 7 days prior to admission and reported their sociodemographic characteristics and healthcare utilization. There were 1,080,334 ED admissions in 2021 vs. 1,113,230 in 2019. In 2021, 74% of these admissions had no prior outpatient visits (virtual or in-person) within 7 days of admission, compared to 75% in 2019. Only 3% of ED admissions had both virtual and in-person visits in the 7 days prior to ED admission. Patients with prior virtual care use were more likely to be hospitalized than those without any outpatient care (13% vs 7.7.%). The net amount of ED admissions and outpatient care prior to admission remained the same over a period of the COVID-19 pandemic when cases were relatively stable. Virtual care seemed to be able to appropriately triage patients to the ED and virtual visits replaced in-person visits ahead of ED admissions, as opposed to being additive.

Healthcare initiatives have a larger impact if effective initiatives are spread (brought from one site to the next) or scaled (infrastructure developed to underpin and support widespread implementation), while sustaining initial benefits. Unfortunately, many initiatives, including digital health initiatives, remain confined to the pilot stage. Of those initiatives that do progress, little is known about how to plan for the equitable spread and scale of effective initiatives. There are many structural \"models\" of spread and scale, defined here as conceptual representations of how initiatives are organised and delivered across multiple settings (i.e., hub-and-spoke model), yet little is known about these models. Primary Objective: To identify and describe structural models for spreading and scaling digital health initiatives. Secondary Objectives: 1. To describe the associated factors, strengths, limitations, and necessary preconditions associated with each model. 2. To describe the barriers and facilitators experienced when applying each model. 3. To explore whether and how each model prioritized equitable delivery of care. 4. To determine which pre-established types of scale (horizontal, vertical, diversification, and spontaneous) are associated with each model. A scoping review will be conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search strategy includes peer-reviewed databases for health and business, alongside grey literature sources. Eligibility criteria follow the Population-Concept-Context framework, focusing on digital health initiatives delivered in healthcare settings. The review will produce a comprehensive overview of structural models for spreading and scaling digital health initiatives, including model names, descriptions, strengths, limitations, preconditions, associated barriers and facilitators of applying each model, relationships between models and established types of scale, and equity considerations. This novel review aims to inform practical planning of how to bring digital health initiatives to new settings and populations, to support more equitable access to these initiatives.

Purpose Chronic disease is a global concern. While ample research has aimed to identify the epidemiology of multimorbidity and patient complexity using administrative data, little attention has been paid to the processes of care that treating complex patients entail. Consequently, the concept of patient complexity itself does not directly speak to how challenging it may be to care for a given patient. The purpose of this study was to investigate how primary care providers define, encounter, and manage complex patients, especially those with chronic pain. To our knowledge, this is the first study to move beyond general narrative descriptions of complexity towards an interrogation that is grounded in the work practices of caring for these patients. Methods We undertook an institutional ethnography (IE) in Ontario, Canada. IE uses people’s everyday work problems as the starting point for an exploration of the often-invisible social relations that orient experiences. Grounded in the everyday experience of primary care providers, we draw here on 51 interviews that were collected as part of our larger IE study, to interrogate the utility of definitions of patient complexity as medical multimorbidity. Findings Care providers consider patients challenging due to their socio-economic status more so than their medical problems alone. Our data shows that patients’ issues are often bound up with poverty, trauma, and mental health concerns, and are challenging for health care providers in part because the interventions needed exceed the scope of their medical expertise, while social issues render the treatment of potentially straightforward medical problems complicated. This was especially so for patients with chronic pain. Conclusion Defining patient complexity as morbidity alone is inadequate; such models neglect syndromes and conditions that are not included in formal disease classifications. Chronic pain should be included among the chronic conditions that are considered to constitute multimorbidity. In order to provide effective patient-centered care, discussions of patient complexity must also attend to the complex social and economic circumstances in which many patients live and include broader issues of inequity and social justice. This approach would enable policies to better support primary care providers who struggle to manage their patients with complex needs across domains of physiological health, mental health, and the quality of their living conditions, and in so doing improve the care that patients receive.