Knoedler, Meghan

Objective: Health care delivery has undergone a shift from in-person visits to more remote consultations via telehealth. Despite the increasing adoption of telehealth for tertiary medical centers’ new patient visits, its impact on subsequent in-person health care utilization has not been widely studied. Our objective was to examine differences in health care services used by patients who established care in-person versus those who initiated care remotely via telehealth. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who established care at one of our three main Mayo Clinic campuses through either an in-person or telemedicine visit between September 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024. We analyzed aggregate data related to downstream in-person services encompassing diagnostic studies, outpatient procedures, surgical procedures (referred to as “surgical yield”), specialist consultations, and follow-up appointments. Results: This study evaluated 252,356 new patient visits, of which 14,915 (5.9%) were performed remotely via telemedicine. Patients who established care in-person had an average of 10.47 subsequent in-person visits. Among patients who initiated care via telemedicine, 62.7% (9,351) later received in-person services, with an average of 16 in-person visits per patient. Surgical yield was higher for patients who started remotely via telehealth and then came on-site, at 29% compared to 16% for those who started with an on-site visit. States bordering the clinic locations had increased percentages of in-person visits compared to states that required patients to travel longer distances. Conclusions: Patients who established care through an initial telemedicine appointment and then came on-site had more downstream encounters and surgical procedures than those who began in-person. This may be due to the ability to efficiently coordinate multiple appointments within a condensed timeframe, optimizing the planning of on-site visits. Additionally, both patients and providers may selectively utilize telemedicine to identify individuals who would derive the greatest benefit from in-person care.

Objectives: Patient involvement in the choice of whether to undergo emergency department observation unit (EDOU) admission and cardiac stress testing or follow-up with a physician could increase knowledge, increase satisfaction, and safely decrease resource use. We test this hypothesis in a randomized trial. Methods: We developed and tested Chest Pain Choice, a decision aid that communicates the pre-test probability of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 45 days and makes management options (EDOU admission and stress testing or 24-72 hr follow-up with a physician) explicit to the patient. Patients with a primary complaint of chest pain and no known coronary artery disease who were being considered for EDOU admission were eligible. Patient-clinician pairs were randomized to intervention (decision aid plus risk estimate) or usual care (no decision aid, no risk estimate). We used patient surveys and 30-day phone follow-up to assess the primary outcome (patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS), patient satisfaction, safety (delayed or missed ACS defined as acute myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac/unknown death), and resource use. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results: The 205 patients had the following characteristics: mean age (SD) 54.7 (11.8), 59% female, 36% history of HTN and 10% history of diabetes. Compared with usual care patients (n=104), patients receiving the decision aid (n=101) less frequently decided to be admitted to the EDOU for cardiac stress testing (58% vs 77%, absolute difference = 19%, 95% CI 6, 31), had a lower rate of stress testing (74% vs 90%, absolute difference = 16%, 95% CI 6, 26), greater knowledge of their exact pre-test probability of ACS (25% vs 1%, absolute difference = 24%, 95% CI 15, 33) and reported greater satisfaction with the decision-making process (strongly agree: 61% vs 40%, absolute difference = 21%, 95% CI 7, 33). There were no cases of delayed or missed ACS in either arm. Conclusion: Use of a decision aid in ED chest pain patients increased knowledge, increased satisfaction, and safely decreased resource use. In an era of health care reform, shared decision-making is a promising approach that may both increase patient engagement and decrease resource use.Funding(This research has received full or partial funding support from the American Heart Association, National Center)