Keywords
telemedicine - telehealth - underserved populations - primary Care - communication
- patient satisfaction - communications
Introduction
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a rapid adoption of telehealth.
A recent report stated that nearly half (43.5%) of Medicare primary care visits were
provided via telehealth in April 2020 as compared with 0.1% in February 2020.[1] The report further states that the use of telehealth in primary care declined somewhat
after in-person visits started to resume from mid-April through May 2020 but then
appears to have leveled off at a persistent and significant level by June 2020. This
trend suggests a continued interest in telehealth use for care delivery.
Prior to the pandemic, disparities in patient access to technology had relatively
little impact on the provision of medical services, which were overwhelmingly delivered
person-to-person at physical clinic sites. With the swift adoption of telehealth as
the dominant form of outpatient medical care during the pandemic, however, the impact
of disparities in technology access became more apparent.[2]
[3]
[4] The ability to access and use smartphones or camera-outfitted internet-connected
devices stratifies telehealth care delivery into two discrete categories—telephone
and video.
The inability to access and use smartphones or camera-outfitted internet-connected
devices during the COVID-19 pandemic relegates a group of largely economically disadvantaged
patients to receive audio-only telemedicine.[5] This raises the risk of widening healthcare inequities given the concern among medical
providers that telephone-based care may be inferior to video-based care.[5]
[6] The reasons for this belief are multifactorial. Firstly, visual input is essential
in certain fields such as dermatology and neurology for accurate diagnosis.[7] Secondly, being able to visualize patients may help with assessing their severity
of illness and facilitating appropriate triage or avoidance of emergency care. Finally,
under certain circumstances, video communication appears to confer benefits for patient–provider
communication and relationship-building.[8]
[9]
[10]
A review of internal data from earlier in the transition to telemedicine at the Johns
Hopkins Outpatient Center Internal Medicine Resident primary care clinic (3,409 total
patients, 89 providers) showed that 86% of 550 telemedicine visits occurred by telephone
rather than video. This occurred even though there was an enterprise-wide push toward
video medicine. Prior to COVID-19, understanding the differences in the impact between
telephone and video-based medicine simply had little relevance. Legal regulation limited
the scope of telehealth services with telephone-based care to having only a supportive
role, and video visits being largely limited to use in rural America to broaden access
to specialized care.
Despite a common view that telephone-based care is inferior to video-based care, few
high-quality studies have compared the impact of each modality on patient and provider
satisfaction.[11]
[12] One trial to date that randomized patients to audio versus video telemedicine found
patient satisfaction to be higher with audio-only visits.[13] Notably, the patients studied here differed from our population of interest in that
they already had the capacity to perform video visits and were randomized to continue
by this modality versus change to audio-only. Moreover, the clinical sites included
specialty care. As we face a future with a strong telemedicine presence, we need to
identify which patients cannot participate in video-based care and understand the
differences between telephone and video telemedicine in terms of patient and provider
satisfaction, as well as its impact on patient care.
Objectives
The overall goal of this work is to pilot a framework for the set-up, delivery, and
use of tablets by underserved patients for video-based telemedicine visits. Furthermore,
we compared the video to telephone-based medicine in the primary care setting in terms
of patient and provider attitudes: (1) perceived satisfaction with the telemedicine
format; (2) ability to explain medical problems; and (3) feeling as satisfied as talking
in person. In addition, we assessed patients' perceived quality of their health care
provider and the quality of the patient–provider interaction. Providers rated the
perceived effectiveness of the telemedicine format on the clinical assessment and
management of the patient. We hypothesized that patient and provider attitudes will
be more positive with video-based telehealth when compared to phone-based telehealth.
Methods
Study Participants, Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria, and Enrollment
We contacted adult patients with a residential address in the state of Maryland and
within a shipping radius that cost less than $20 and that were scheduled for a telephone-based
visit. Patients with significant visual or hearing impairment, who have legal guardians
or who were marked as lacking health care decision-making capacity, were excluded.
In addition, we excluded patients who had not selected English as their preferred
language. To find these patients, study group members manually reviewed the appointment
notes of upcoming telemedicine visits at the Johns Hopkins Outpatient Center Internal
Medicine Resident primary care clinic, excluding encounters that clearly indicated
the patient's capacity and plan for a video visit.
Next, eligible patients were contacted for further screening to ensure that they had
a scheduled telephone-visit due to a lack of ability to have a video visit (i.e.,
no computer or smartphone with a camera and internet connectivity) and to obtain informed
consent orally. Patients were enrolled in a 1:1 fashion into either the intervention
arm or control arm. The control arm continued with their scheduled phone visits, per
standard of care. Patients from both groups were provided gift cards in exchange for
their participation. We enrolled patients between February 2021 and December 21. This
study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of
Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and approved
by the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board (reference
no. 00257994).
Mechanics of Delivery/Pick up
This pilot project circulated six devices (Microsoft Surface Go tablets) to patients
for video visit use. A device was shipped to the home address of each patient in the
intervention arm in advance of the visit. Following the session, it was picked up
from the patient's home and shipped back to the clinic. The device was then cleaned,
charged, and prepared for delivery to the next patient. Durable, waterproof, and well-cushioned
electronics cases doubled as reusable shipping packaging, minimizing costs. The study
team called the patient 24 to 72 hours prior to their visit to answer any questions
they had about using the devices. Patients in the control group were similarly contacted
24 to 72 hours prior to their visit. This served to balance the amount of personal
attention given to both groups of patients by study team members, minimizing a potential
source of bias in which satisfaction and communication results may favor the intervention
arm. This process is illustrated in [Fig. 1].
Fig. 1 Targeted home telemedicine system for primary care—process for screening (A), randomization (B), visit completion (C), and survey completion (D).
Simplified Device
Recognizing that our target population may be unfamiliar and potentially uncomfortable
with computers, we worked to simplify device use as much as possible. In partnership
with Microsoft, we customized the Surface Go tablet devices for this study. From the
patient's perspective, to use the device they turned it on, logged in with a PIN,
and touched the desktop icon for Teams. Upon receiving a provider call, they clicked
a pop-up window to “accept” and start the video visit. [Fig. 2] illustrates this process. All other functions of the device were disabled and were
not visible to the user. The device was accompanied by simple pictorial instructions
to illustrate how to turn on the device and get set up for the video visit. The devices
were precharged, and no cords were included. This process stood in contrast to the
standard video visit procedure at the time that required patients to go through an
initial registration process and then log in using an online portal to access their
video visit. From the perspective of providers, rather than using the telemedicine
platform that was embedded in the electronic health record (EHR), clinicians would
directly dial the patient's device using a U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act-compliant, secure, and institutionally authorized platform, Microsoft Teams. At
the time of this study, the Teams program was already in regular, daily, use as a
part of the clinic workflow.
Fig. 2 Video telemedicine process from the patient's perspective.
Internet Delivery
One potential approach to expand access for patients to video-based telemedicine would
have been to provide computers that could tap into existing WiFi networks. Free accessible
public WiFi, however, was not available in the homes of patients in our catchment
area. We considered that some patients may already have computers or phones with video
capability but otherwise lack mobile phone data plans or a suitable internet connection.
While the provision of just a mobile hotspot might have facilitated video visits for
these patients, introducing heterogeneity in the intervention arm would have adversely
impacted our ability to reach any conclusion about our study's impact. We therefore
equipped our devices with LTE connectivity and shipped them to patients' homes. This
ensured reliable internet connectivity and allowed patients to remain in their homes
for their video-based telemedicine visits.
Survey Design and Distribution
Patient and provider surveys were adapted from previously published instruments. Patients
evaluated the quality of their provider using a revised Hospital Consumer Assessment
of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey by Palen et al.[14] Questions from the Perceptions of Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire by Bakken
et al were incorporated to assess patient and provider satisfaction and communication.[15] Lastly, a survey by Glaser et al was adapted to gauge the clinical effectiveness
of the visit as perceived by providers.[16]
To assess patients' perceived quality of their health care provider when interacting
by video versus telephone, patients in both groups were asked to rate the provider
on a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is the worst provider possible and 10 is the best provider
possible.
The quality of the provider interaction was assessed by four subscales: having clear
explanations, feeling heard, feeling respected, and having enough time with the provider.
Items were rated on a Yes/No scale: yes indicates feeling satisfied with the provider
interaction.
The satisfaction with the telemedicine visit was assessed by three subscales: perceived
satisfaction with the telemedicine format in general, ability to explain or understand
medical problems well enough, and feeling as satisfied as talking to the doctor or
patient in person. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale: higher point indicates
higher satisfaction with the telemedicine visit. The effectiveness of the telemedicine
format for the clinical assessment and management of the patient was evaluated by
the providers using three subscales: perceived effectiveness of the telemedicine visit
in general, the potential that an in-person visit would yield clinically relevant
or management-changing information. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale:
for the first subscale, a higher point indicates higher effectiveness of the telemedicine
format while for the last two subscales, a higher point indicates lower effectiveness
of the telemedicine format.
The patient survey further asked about education, perceived health status, and computer
usage. The provider survey requested demographic information, postgraduate year, and
why the telemedicine technology did not work if the visit was not completed.
In this pilot study, we offered multiple mechanisms to collect survey responses from
patient study participants. For video visits, patient study participants could complete
surveys in one of three ways: (1) by completing a web-based survey that appeared on
the screen after the medical visit; (2) by completing a paper-based survey with a
preaddressed and stamped return envelope; or (3) by completing the survey responses
over the phone with a study team member. Instructions for the patient study participant
to activate the web-based survey were provided with the tablet; however, if they forgot
or chose not to complete the web-based survey, the paper-based survey was mailed to
them by the study team. For phone visits, patient study participants could complete
surveys one of two ways: (1) by completing a paper-based survey that was sent to them
by mail; or (2) by completing the survey responses over the phone with a study team
member.
Data Analysis
Data analyses were conducted using STATA/BE version 17.0. Independent means t-tests and Fisher's exact test compared intervention group participants to control
group participants as well as acceptors to decliners to participate in the study.
Free-text responses were summarized and used to provide context for our findings.
Patient and provider attitudes were assessed using descriptive statistics. In addition,
we used independent t-tests to compare the difference in rating of the patient and provider attitudes with
and without device use for video visits. Statistical significance criterion was set
at p < 0.05.
Results
Study Participants
By reviewing the appointment notes, we identified 164 patients with upcoming visits
that appeared to be by phone and who met eligibility criteria. Of the 121 patients
successfully reached by the study team, 82 did not complete the phone screening protocol,
and 20 declined to participate. In total, 19 patients consented to participation although
two subsequently withdrew consent. Seventeen patients underwent randomization to the
intervention group (nine patients) and control group (eight patients). Four patients
from the control group completed a phone visit, while three did not complete their
visits. One patient used their own video-enabled device to complete a video visit.
From the intervention group, five patients completed a video visit and one patient
could not use the device and completed a phone visit. Three patients did not complete
the visit. Five patients who completed a phone visit and five patients who completed
a video visit responded to the survey ([Fig. 3]).
Fig. 3 Flowchart showing patient recruitment, randomization, and visit and survey completion.
The trial participants were a median age of 58 years, majority African American and
not Hispanic or Latino, and had Medicare, Medicare Advantage, or Medicaid as their
insurance ([Table 1]). The majority of the telemedicine visits were between patients and their own primary
care doctors as opposed to being with covering physicians. There were no significant
differences between groups except for gender. In total, 89% of participants were female
in the intervention group versus 38% in the control group (p-value = 0.05).
Table 1
Demographics, insurance coverage, and telemedicine visit providers of study participants
|
Patients
|
|
Total
(n = 17)
|
Intervention
(n = 9)
|
Control
(n = 8)
|
p-Value
|
|
Age (years)—median (IQR)
|
57 (49–61)
|
61 (55–74)
|
49.5 (41–59)
|
0.1
|
|
Sex—n (%)
|
|
|
|
0.05
|
|
Male
|
6 (35.3)
|
1 (11.1)
|
5 (62.5)
|
|
|
Female
|
11 (64.7)
|
8 (89.9)
|
3 (37.5)
|
|
|
Race & ethnicity—n (%)
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
African American and Hispanic or Latino
|
1 (5.9)
|
0
|
1 (12.5)
|
|
|
African American and not Hispanic or Latino
|
11 (64.7)
|
5 (55.6)
|
6 (75)
|
|
|
White or Caucasian and not Hispanic or Latino
|
3 (17.6)
|
3 (33.3)
|
0
|
|
|
Other race and not Hispanic or Latino
|
2 (11.8)
|
1 (11.1)
|
1 (12.5)
|
|
|
Telemedicine visit provider—n (%)
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
Listed primary care provider
|
11 (64.7)
|
5 (55.6)
|
6 (75)
|
|
|
Covering provider
|
6 (35.3)
|
4 (44.4)
|
2 (25)
|
|
|
Primary coverage—n (%)
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
Medicare
|
6 (35.3)
|
3 (33.3)
|
3 (37.5)
|
|
|
Medicaid
|
5 (29.4)
|
2 (22.2)
|
3 (37.5)
|
|
|
Medicare advantage
|
4 (23.5)
|
3 (33.3)
|
1 (12.5)
|
|
|
Commercial
|
2 (11.8)
|
1 (11.1)
|
1 (12.5)
|
|
Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range.
Characterization of Patients Who Declined Participation
Of the 20 individuals who declined to participate in the study, 14 provided explanations:
nonspecific personal reasons (seven people), preference for phone over video (five
people), not comfortable displaying themselves (one person), not comfortable using
a computer (one person). The demographics of patients who declined participation were
not different than those who accepted ([Supplementary Appendix 1], available in the online version).
Patient Satisfaction
Five patients who completed a phone visit and five patients who completed a video
visit filled out the post-telemedicine-visit survey about their satisfaction. The
perceived quality of the healthcare provider as well as the quality of the patient–provider
interaction were universally high and there was no statistical significance between
groups ([Supplementary Appendix 2], available in the online version).
The mean score was statistically significantly higher in the video visit group than
in the phone visit group in terms of all three subscales assessing telemedicine satisfaction
([Table 2]). Respondents from the video visit group were more satisfied with the telemedicine
modality they used for the visit, in general. Their mean score for the question, if
they could explain their medical problems well enough, was statistically significantly
higher. They had a statistically significantly higher mean score in the question evaluating
if talking to the doctor using the telemedicine modality was as satisfying as talking
in person (p = 0.008, p = 0.04, and p = 0.028, respectively).
Table 2
Patient survey results—provider quality, communication ability, and satisfaction with
telemedicine visit (video visit group vs. phone visit group)
|
Patients
|
|
Video visit
(n = 5)
|
Phone visit
(n = 5)
|
p-Value
|
|
Using any number from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst provider possible and 10 is the
best provider possible, what number would you use to rate this provider (mean score)?
|
9.8
|
9.2
|
0.14
|
|
I could explain my medical problems well enough (mean score)
|
4.6
|
4
|
0.04
|
|
In general, I was satisfied with using a video or phone call for this visit (mean
score)
|
4.8
|
3.8
|
0.008
|
|
Talking to the doctor was as satisfying as talking in person (mean score)
|
4.8
|
3.6
|
0.028
|
Patient Health, Education, and Technology Assessments
There were no statistically significant differences between study groups in their
self-assessments of health, education, and technology use ([Supplementary Appendix 3], available in the online version). Patients generally rated their physical and mental
health as good. Education levels ranged from having a partial high school education
to having completed some college education or a 2-year degree. As expected, a majority
of patients were not using computers at home. Cost and lack of familiarity with the
technology were the main barriers to smartphone and internet/computer use ([Supplementary Appendix 4], available in the online version).
Effectiveness of the Telemedicine Formats
Four providers returned survey data. Three had completed video visits and one completed
a phone visit. There were no statistically significant differences in any measure
of satisfaction or efficacy between the providers who provided video visits and those
who provided phone visits ([Supplementary Appendix 5], available in the online version).
Discussion
Our study describes a new framework to facilitate video-based telemedicine visits
via the delivery of customized easy-to-use internet-connected tablets for patients
who otherwise lacked the requisite technological capacity. By randomly assigning patients
to either receive a device versus continue with their upcoming telephone-only visit,
we additionally collected high-quality data comparing these two modalities of telemedicine
visits.
Summary of Main Findings and Outcomes
In summary, we designed a tablet solution for ease of use and successfully piloted
our framework for the set-up, delivery, and use of those tablets by patients who previously
were unable to complete video-based telemedicine visits. In addition, our findings
indicated that regardless of modality patient satisfaction was high (mean of 3.6 or
more for all questions, [Table 2]). While it may not be surprising to see higher satisfaction among those completing
video-based visits, when compared to those completing audio-based visits among a sample
of patients with technology access issues, this study provides some additional insight
into the magnitude of benefit that could be achieved with improved technology access.
Three items, however, were rated more favorably by patients who completed video visits.
These included satisfaction with the visit modality, satisfaction with talking to
their doctor, and their capacity to explain medical issues (p = 0.008, p = 0.04, p = 0.028, respectively). This finding occurred despite limited enrollment. This study
also identified several lessons from our experiences with identifying eligible patients
and from implementing our model to make telehealth more accessible.
Lessons Learned from Identifying and Enrolling Underserved Patients
The predominant barrier we encountered to increasing distribution of the telemedicine
devices was low patient enrollment. This stemmed from difficulty in both finding and
recruiting patients. As there was no EHR field designating which patients lacked the
capacity to conduct video visits, manual review was needed. This time-intensive process
involved screening 750 patient appointment scheduling notes, yielding 164 potentially
eligible patients. Patient engagement in the study enrollment process was also limiting.
Of these, 164 potentially eligible patients, only 19 agreed to participate. The reasons
potential participants declined enrollment were often unable to be determined as a
large majority of patients prematurely ended the calls made by the research team or
did not provide any reason for their disinterest. Potential explanations for this
behavior include suspicion of medical research and a complicated protracted enrollment
script required by the institutional review board. For the small numbers who provided
a rationale for declining study participation, excluding those with personal circumstances,
patients primarily stated that it was either their preference for phone or their discomfort
with the video that drove disinterest in the study.
Recognizing the limitations associated with EHR data, our screening process from the
onset, involved talking directly with patients. Even with this robust screening protocol,
however, several patients ultimately were selected for participation who did not meet
prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two of the nine patients assigned to
the tablet device were subsequently found to have significant cognitive impairment
and psychiatric disease that rendered them unable or unwilling to participate. In
the control arm, one of eight patients was able to procure a video device although
their inclusion in the study was predicated on their inability to do so.
Based on billing data that distinguish video versus audio-only telemedicine, a large
number of patients without the capacity to perform video telemedicine were seemingly
not being reached by our efforts. Some of these visits may have taken place via audio-only
connections for other reasons—technical failure of the video client, provider-side
issues, patient refusal, or patient error despite their theoretical capacity. With
such a high drop-off because of patients not being reached for consent, we presume
that this played a large role in our recruitment numbers. Two potential avenues for
increasing patient access to devices include (1) orienting patients to these devices
during in-person visits to alleviate any concerns and increase their acceptance and
(2) changing workflow so that patients are identified and screened to receive a device
while a future visit is being scheduled, thereby eliminating the need to subsequently
connect with and consent patients by phone call.
Lessons Learned from the Pilot
We found that for those patients who agreed to participate and were randomized to
the intervention arm, device delivery before the visit and retrieval after the visit
using a standard domestic shipping company was an efficient and effective process.
This allowed a small number of internet-enabled devices to reach large numbers of
patients. Two patients were unable to access the telemedicine platform even though
they were using the devices appropriately and had live support from research team
personnel. Although the computers were formatted to be easier to operate, the first
version of our modified platform contained a glitch that could lead to a failure of
the video platform to initialize. Subsequent iterations of our devices eliminated
this problem. Were it not for these technical issues with our platform, seven of nine
patients in the intervention arm would have completed video-based telemedicine visits.
This is similar to the 82% of tablet use by patients who received devices through
the VA as part of an effort to improve rural telemedicine.[17]
While distributing computers into the community may raise concerns about device damage
or loss, there were no instances of either throughout our trial. Location tracking
software was installed on all devices as a deterrent and this was communicated through
a sticker placed on all tablets. The software was never used. On two occasions, research
personnel presented with permission to patients' homes for device retrieval, but this
was due to participant confusion about the return process. Other studies involving
the distribution of telehealth technology have had loss rates of 20 to 30%.[18] Our low rate of loss may be a product of a small sample size, however.
Limitations
While this pilot project demonstrates both the feasibility and promise of this approach
to telemedicine delivery, certain limitations should be considered. Given the trial
was conducted for a single clinic within one health system, our findings may not be
generalizable to other practices. While our implementation was with one site, the
tools used for our implementation are employed across the country—teleconferencing
software (Microsoft Teams) and EHR (EPIC). Adjustment of this care delivery model
would need to take into account local factors including the location and geographic
distribution of patient homes and the existing telemedicine process and scheduling
practices. Our model required additional resources to implement, including internet
data plans, tablets, shipping costs, and time from research study personnel. While
these costs may be offset by increased reimbursement for video-based telemedicine,
further exploration of this telemedicine model's financial impact is needed. Our exclusion
of non-English-speaking patients, a functional necessity due to operational constraints
of our pilot project, may have introduced an unmeasured selection bias. Both to avoid
exacerbating any underlying inequity in video-based telemedicine access and to broaden
the study recruitment pool, efforts should be made to include this patient population
in the future.
Conclusion
This study shows promise for the feasibility of facilitating video-based telemedicine
primary care visits for patients with limited technological literacy through the delivery
of simplified internet-connected devices. Data from this pilot project support the
widely held belief that video-based telemedicine is superior to phone-based telemedicine
in terms of patient satisfaction and communication. Further, larger-scale research
is needed to be able to evaluate differences between audio and video telemedicine.
Our outreach model relied on reaching out to patients after telemedicine visits had
been scheduled. Embedding within the scheduling process an assessment of capacity
for video-based telemedicine with the option to request a device would be an appealing
strategy to expand device deployment. A large segment of the patient population prefers
phone over video for the purposes of telemedicine. Without further understanding the
rationale behind this sentiment, any intervention that simply provides the capacity
to conduct video-based telemedicine will not be effective at transforming audio to
video-based visits. Given diminishing reimbursement for audio-only visits versus audio–video
visits, broadening access to video-based telemedicine through this process may not
only reduce inequities in health care access but also be cost-neutral or even financially
advantageous.[19]
Clinical Relevance Statement
Clinical Relevance Statement
Large numbers of patients remain unable to participate in video-based telemedicine.
One mechanism to expand video telemedicine access is to deliver easy-to-use internet-connected
computers to patients in need and retrieve them after the visit. This as-needed model
for video telemedicine allows for a small number of devices to serve the telemedicine
needs of a large clinic population.
