Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Record (EHR) Medication Reconciliation Technology Requires a Shared Understanding of Its Value Among Healthcare Providers

Recent efforts to reform the healthcare delivery system have focused on improving patient safety during transitions of care, when patients move between healthcare providers and settings as their conditions change during the course of an illness (1-5). Medication errors, which represent the most common patient safety error during care transitions (e.g., admission, transfer, and discharge), are estimatedto harm 1.5 million people and cost at least $3.5 billion per year. Adverse drug events are also estimated to affect approximately 2 million hospital stays per year and prolong the length of stay by 1.7–4.6 days (6,7). Transitions of care pose a higher risk for medication errors due to greater potential for communication breakdowns regarding patient medications between healthcare settings. Over 40 percent of medication errors are known to result from inadequate reconciliation of patient medications during transitions of care. In other words, many of these errors could be averted if consistent medication reconciliation (MedRec) processes were in place (5-7)

A Holistic Framework of Strategies and Best Practices for Telehealth Service Design and Implementation

Telehealth refers to the use of electronic media to support a broad range of remote services such as patient care, education, and monitoring. Drawing upon the “design thinking” framework, a holistic approach to telehealth service design would be one that takes into consideration the multiple, interdependent dimensions of telehealth services, including processes, user-experience, and sustainability. The information technology infrastructure library (ITIL) is a well-known framework of best practices in IT service management. However, as a stand-alone resource, it is limited in being able to provide a meaningful set of strategies for telehealth service design and implementation for clinicians and healthcare leaders. The ITIL framework emanated from an industry-based approach to developing best practices for IT service management. This paper takes an organizational theory-based approach to identifying strategies for telehealth service design and implementation. These strategies are then integrated with practices put forth by the ITIL framework, to develop a “holistic framework” of strategies and best practices for telehealth service design and implementation, intended to be meaningful to clinicians, healthcare leaders, and IT service managers alike. The primary purpose of this paper is to integrate theory-based “design thinking” and “consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR)” frameworks, with the existing industry-based ITIL framework, to develop a holistic framework of strategies and best practices for telehealth service design and implementation. A supplemental purpose is to apply the holistic framework to cases of success and failure in telehealth services, to discuss implications for practice and future research

Preserving Organizational Resilience, Patient Safety, and Staff Retention during COVID-19 Requires a Holistic Consideration of the Psychological Safety of Healthcare Workers

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers are fighting a lethal virus with acute shortages of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). These unprecedented circumstances have amplified the sources of emotional distress and worker burnout. However, many healthcare organizations (HCOs) in the United States, have opted for a “stoic approach” to healthcare worker support, i.e., no additional support beyond federal and state policy protections for the licensing and liability of healthcare workers. In this scenario, a key public health concern is sustaining an adequate healthcare workforce, both by way of quantity (adequate numbers) and quality (maximizing clinician resilience to provide safe care to large volumes of patients under challenging conditions). Therefore, it is imperative for HCO leaders to recognize that a limited view of worker psychological safety, without due consideration for the broader emotional distress created by the pandemic, could have the effect of restricting organizational resilience and adversely impacting patient safety and staff retention during and beyond the pandemic. This paper uses the organizational resilience framework to discuss the potential impact of a stoic approach to healthcare worker support on patient safety and staff retention in a hospital intensive care unit (ICU) during COVID-19. The discussion in turn, helps to develop recommendations for HCOs to overcome these challenges

A scoping review of applications of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to telehealth service implementation initiatives

Abstract Background The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), introduced in 2009, has the potential to provide a comprehensive understanding of the determinants of implementation-effectiveness of health service innovations. Although the CFIR has been increasingly used in recent years to examine factors influencing telehealth implementation, no comprehensive reviews currently exist on the scope of knowledge gained exclusively from applications of the CFIR to telehealth implementation initiatives. This review sought to address this gap. Methods PRISMA-ScR criteria were used to inform a scoping review of the literature. Five academic databases (PUBMED, PROQUEST, SCIDIRECT, CINAHL, and WoS) were searched for eligible sources of evidence from 01.01.2010 through 12.31.2021. The initial search yielded a total of 18,388 records, of which, 64 peer-reviewed articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. Included articles were reviewed in full to extract data, and data collected were synthesized to address the review questions. Results Most included articles were published during or after 2020 (64%), and a majority (77%) were qualitative or mixed-method studies seeking to understand barriers or facilitators to telehealth implementation using the CFIR. There were few comparative- or implementation-effectiveness studies containing outcome measures (5%). The database search however, revealed a growing number of protocols for implementation-effectiveness studies published since 2020. Most articles (91%) reported the CFIR Inner Setting domain (e.g., leadership engagement) to have a predominant influence over telehealth implementation success. By comparison, few articles (14%) reported the CFIR Outer Setting domain (e.g., telehealth policies) to have notable influence. While more (63%) telehealth initiatives were focused on specialty (vs primary) care, a vast majority (78%) were focused on clinical practice over medical education, healthcare administration, or population health. Conclusions Organized provider groups have historically paid considerable attention to advocating for telehealth policy (Outer Setting) reform. However, results suggest that for effective telehealth implementation, provider groups need to refocus their efforts on educating individual providers on the complex inter-relationships between Inner Setting constructs and telehealth implementation-effectiveness. On a separate note, the growth in implementation-effectiveness study protocols since 2020, suggests that additional outcome measures may soon be available, to provide a more nuanced understanding of the determinants of effective telehealth implementation based on the CFIR domains and constructs

A Narrative Review of Factors Historically Influencing Telehealth Use across Six Medical Specialties in the United States

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, studies in the US have identified wide variations in telehealth use across medical specialties. This is an intriguing problem, because the US has historically lacked a standardized set of telehealth coverage and reimbursement policies, which has posed a barrier to telehealth use across all specialties. Although all medical specialties in the US have been affected by these macro (policy-level) barriers, some specialties have been able to integrate telehealth use into mainstream practice, while others are just gaining momentum with telehealth during COVID-19. Although the temporary removal of policy (coverage) restrictions during the pandemic has accelerated telehealth use, uncertainties remain regarding future telehealth sustainability. Since macro (policy-level) factors by themselves do not serve to explain the variation in telehealth use across specialties, it would be important to examine meso (organizational-level) and micro (individual-level) factors historically influencing telehealth use across specialties, to understand underlying reasons for variation and identify implications for widespread sustainability. This paper draws upon the existing literature to develop a conceptual framework on macro-meso-micro factors influencing telehealth use within a medical specialty. The framework is then used to guide a narrative review of the telehealth literature across six medical specialties, including three specialties with lower telehealth use (allergy-immunology, family medicine, gastroenterology) and three with higher telehealth use (psychiatry, cardiology, radiology) in the US, in order to synthesize themes and gain insights into barriers and facilitators to telehealth use. In doing so, this review addresses a gap in the literature and provides a foundation for future research. Importantly, it helps to identify implications for ensuring widespread sustainability of telehealth use in the post-pandemic future

Demographic and Risk-Factor Differences between Users and Non-Users of Unscheduled Healthcare among Pediatric Outpatients with Persistent Asthma

This study assesses differences between users and non-users of unscheduled healthcare for persistent childhood asthma, with regard to select demographic and risk factors. The objectives are to provide important healthcare utilization information and a foundation for future research on self-management effectiveness (SME), informed by a recently developed “holistic framework” for measuring SME in childhood asthma. An 18-month retrospective chart review was conducted on 59 pediatric outpatients with persistent asthma—mild, moderate, or severe, to obtain data on various demographic and risk factors, and healthcare use for each child. The study examined five types of “unscheduled” healthcare use. Users had non-zero encounters (at least one) in any of the five types; non-users had zero encounters (not even one) in all five types. Differences between users and non-users were assessed using contingency table and logistic regression analysis. There were 25 users and 34 non-users of unscheduled healthcare. Each severity category contained users and non-users. The only statistically significant finding was that the mild persistent category had fewer users than severe persistent (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between users and non-users for any other demographic or risk factor examined. After adjusting for asthma severity, there were no other significant differences between users and non-users of unscheduled healthcare. This is a crucial finding which suggests that something else is driving unscheduled healthcare use in these children, given there were users and non-users in each asthma severity category. These results provide impetus for future research on the role of other aspects of the "holistic framework" in explaining differences in uses of unscheduled healthcare in persistent childhood asthma

Demographic and Risk Factor Differences between Children with “One-Time” and “Repeat” Visits to the Emergency Department for Asthma

This retrospective study examines demographic and risk factor differences between children who visited the emergency department (ED) for asthma once (“one-time”) and more than once (“repeat”) over an 18-month period at an academic medical center. The purpose is to contribute to the literature on ED utilization for asthma and provide a foundation for future primary research on self-management effectiveness (SME) of childhood asthma. For the first round of analysis, an 18-month retrospective chart review was conducted on 252 children (0–17 years) who visited the ED for asthma in 2019–2020, to obtain data on demographics, risk factors, and ED visits for each child. Of these, 160 (63%) were “one-time” and 92 (37%) were “repeat” ED patients. Demographic and risk factor differences between “one-time” and “repeat” ED patients were assessed using contingency table and logistic regression analyses. A second round of analysis was conducted on patients in the age-group 8–17 years to match another retrospective asthma study recently completed in the outpatient clinics at the same (study) institution. The first-round analysis indicated that except age, none of the individual demographic or risk factors were statistically significant in predicting of “repeat” ED visits. More unequivocally, the second-round analysis revealed that none of the individual factors examined (including age, race, gender, insurance, and asthma severity, among others) were statistically significant in predicting “repeat” ED visits for childhood asthma. A key implication of the results therefore is that something other than the factors examined is driving “repeat” ED visits in children with asthma. In addition to contributing to the ED utilization literature, the results serve to corroborate findings from the recent outpatient study and bolster the impetus for future primary research on SME of childhood asthma

Effect of Disease Severity, Age of Child, and Clinic No-Shows on Unscheduled Healthcare Use for Childhood Asthma at an Academic Medical Center

This study examines the influence of various individual demographic and risk factors on the use of unscheduled healthcare (emergency and inpatient visits) among pediatric outpatients with asthma over three retrospective timeframes (12, 18, and 24 months) at an academic health center. Out of a total of 410 children who visited an academic medical center for asthma outpatient care between 2019 and 2020, 105 (26%) were users of unscheduled healthcare for childhood asthma over the prior 12 months, 131 (32%) over the prior 18 months, and 147 (36%) over the prior 24 months. multiple logistic regression (MLR) analysis of the effect of individual risk factors revealed that asthma severity, age of child, and clinic no-shows were statistically significant predictors of unscheduled healthcare use for childhood asthma. Children with higher levels of asthma severity were significantly more likely to use unscheduled healthcare (compared to children with lower levels of asthma severity) across all three timeframes. Likewise, children with three to four clinic no-shows were significantly more likely to use unscheduled healthcare compared to children with zero clinic no-shows in the short term (12 and 18 months). In contrast, older children were significantly less likely to use unscheduled healthcare use compared to younger children in the longer term (24 months). By virtue of its scope and design, this study provides a foundation for addressing a need identified in the literature for short- and long-term strategies for improving supported self-management and reducing unscheduled healthcare use for childhood asthma at the patient, provider, and organizational levels, e.g., (1) implementing telehealth services for asthma outpatient care to reduce clinic no-shows across all levels of asthma severity in the short term; (2) developing a provider–patient partnership to enable patient-centered asthma control among younger children with higher asthma severity in the long term; and (3) identifying hospital–community linkages to address social risk factors influencing clinic no-shows and unscheduled healthcare use among younger children with higher asthma severity in the long term