Wilshusen, Laurie

Abstract Background We examined how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced influenza vaccination, healthcare engagement, and patient satisfaction. Methods We retrospectively analyzed influenza vaccination records and patient experience surveys of adult primary care patients in southeastern Minnesota during two 3-year phases: Prepandemic (1 January 2017–28 February 2020) and Pandemic-Plus (1 March 2020–31 December 2023). Vaccination status was defined as “always vaccinated” (AV), “never vaccinated” (NV), or “intermittently vaccinated” (IV) for seasonal influenza. Results During the Pandemic-Plus phase, 7.0% (n = 3556) of the Prepandemic AV and 48.7% (n = 16 710) of the Prepandemic IV patients never received another influenza vaccine. Compared to AV, IV and NV patients were more likely to reside in areas with greater socioeconomic deprivation (odds ratio [OR], 1.58 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.53–1.62] and 1.99 [1.94–2.05], respectively), have a high school education or less (2.86 [2.74–2.98] and 3.38 [3.23–3.53]), and report healthcare disengagement (1.59 [1.55–1.64] and 4.21 [4.09–4.33]). After adjusting for Area Deprivation Index and medical comorbidities, healthcare disengagement increased among the NV versus AV between phases (3.33 [3.24–3.41] and 4.23 [4.10–4.35]). In a subgroup analysis those with severe comorbidities were less likely AV (NV vs AV: 1.21 [1.14–1.27]) and more dissatisfied with care (NV vs AV: 1.25 [1.18–1.33]). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic altered vaccination behaviors and healthcare satisfaction, especially among those at high risk of developing influenza-related complications. Medical providers and public health officials should be aware of factors associated with vaccine refusal to better target interventions.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored challenges with patient adherence to medical directives, particularly vaccine acceptance. While sociodemographic factors have been linked to non-COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, the relationships between patient experience, the COVID-19 pandemic, and adherence to routine vaccinations are uncertain.Figure 1:Yearly influenza vaccine refusal, influenza vaccine administrations, and overall patient satisfaction since establishing care with a primary care provider from 2017-2023.Panel A (Influenza Refusals): the number of vaccine refusals among individuals who are Intermittently Vaccinated and Never Vaccinated for seasonal influenza since establishing care with a primary care provider over time.Panel B (Influenza Vaccinations): the number of vaccines administered over time since establishing care with a primary care provider among those who are Always Vaccinated and Intermittently Vaccinated for seasonal influenza.Panel C (Overall Satisfaction): the number of patients who indicated that they were maximally satisfied with their overall care following any interaction with the healthcare system over time. Methods We retrospectively analyzed influenza vaccination records of adult primary care patients in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Vaccination history was examined during two phases: Pre-Pandemic (1/1/2017—2/28/2020) and Pandemic-Plus (3/1/2020—12/31/2023). Vaccination status was defined as “always vaccinated” (AV), “never vaccinated” (NV), or “intermittently missed years of vaccinations” (IV) for seasonal influenza. Patient dissatisfaction was determined if patients negatively ranked their overall quality of care on standard patient experience surveys. We explored the relationship between influenza vaccination rates, healthcare engagement, and patient satisfaction.Figure 2:Multinomial logistic regression of patient satisfaction on vaccination status across the phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic, adjusted for engagement in the health care system, participation, and area of deprivation index (ADI) for patients that were (A) intermittently vaccinated compared to always vaccinated and (B) never vaccinated comparted to always vaccinated. The “Pre-pandemic phase” refers to influenza immunization data and patient satisfaction data prior to March 2020. The “Pandemic-plus phase” refers to immunization data and patient satisfaction data from March 2020 to January 2024. Low ADI ranking refers to areas with a low level of deprivation, whereas high ADI ranking refers to areas with a high level of deprivation. Individuals were considered low if they came from an area with a state ADI ranking from 1 to 5 and were considered high if they came from an area with a state ADI ranking from 6 to 10. Results From 1/1/2017 to 12/31/2023, 21% of individuals were AV (n=36,632), 52% were IV (n=90,776), and 27% were NV (n=46,418) for seasonal influenza. Post-pandemic onset, 7% (n=3,556) of the Pre-Pandemic AV and 32% (n=16,710) of the Pre-Pandemic IV never received another influenza vaccine. In the Pandemic-Plus phase, the IV and NV had a higher likelihood of disengagement with the healthcare system [odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 1.59 (1.55, 1.64); 4.21 (4.09, 4.33)], residing in areas of greater deprivation [1.58 (1.53, 1.62); 1.99 (1.94, 2.05)], and self-identifying their race as Black [2.29 (2.09, 2.51); 3.29 (3.01, 3.60)] compared to the AV. After adjusting for healthcare engagement and area of deprivation, dissatisfaction OR increased from 1.03 (0.99,1.07) Pre-Pandemic to 1.07 (1.03,1.12) in the Pandemic-Plus phase among IV compared to AV. Similarly, the OR of dissatisfaction rose from 1.11 (1.05, 1.18) Pre-Pandemic to 1.16 (1.09, 1.24) in the Pandemic-Plus phase among those who were NV compared to those AV. Conclusion Higher healthcare dissatisfaction was observed among those inconsistently adherent to vaccination recommendations. Targeted efforts to enhance patient satisfaction may boost vaccination rates. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

PURPOSE In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices rapidly adopted telehealth services. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ongoing telehealth visit utilization beyond this initial response. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in variables associated with telehealth visit utilization over time. METHODS This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective analysis of telehealth visits conducted across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice in the United States. Multivariable models examined the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization across outpatient visits conducted over three 8-week periods from July to August in 2019 (n = 32,537), 2020 (n = 33,399), and 2021 (n = 35,820). RESULTS The rate of telehealth utilization increased from <0.01% (2019) to 11% (2020) to 14% (2021). The most significant patient-level factors associated with increased telehealth utilization included nonrural residence and age ≤65 years. Among patients residing in rural settings, video visit utilization rates were significantly lower and phone visit utilization rates were significantly higher compared with patients from nonrural residences. Regarding provider-level factors, widening differences in telehealth utilization were observed at tertiary versus community-based practice settings. Increased telehealth utilization was not associated with duplicative care as per-patient and per-physician visit volumes in 2021 remained consistent with prepandemic levels. CONCLUSION We observed continuous expansion in telehealth visit utilization from 2020 to 2021. Our experiences suggest that telehealth can be integrated into cancer practices without evidence of duplicative care. Future work should examine sustainable reimbursement structures and policies to ensure accessibility of telehealth as a means to facilitate equitable, patient-centered cancer care.

Telemedicine approaches provide many benefits to patients across both primary and specialty care. Patient acceptance is imperative to successful telemedicine implementation. As telemedicine utilization continues to surge, it is imperative that healthcare organizations have a method for evaluating the patient experience with these types of visits. Previous studies on experience with telemedicine have focused on smaller patient populations with narrow inclusion criteria and limited geographical reach. This research described how patients’ satisfaction with video telemedicine-based visits varied based on patient characteristics and how they compare with in-person visits. We obtained and analyzed results from standardized patient experience surveys to compare telemedicine and in-person clinic visits during the COVID-19 pandemic (between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021) across a diverse patient population. During the study timeframe, surveys were sent to 1,521,398 patients with a response rate of 20% (307,185). Our organization’s unique structure, size, and geographic spread allowed for a deeper and more comprehensive examination of telemedicine participants. Though a few trends emerged in the results, there were no significant differences in patient ratings of telemedicine visits and in-person clinic visits during the same period (p=0.672). This study demonstrated that patient satisfaction with telemedicine visits was non-inferior to in-person outpatient visits during the study timeframe. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Innovation & Technology lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

AbstractObjectivesPatient satisfaction is tied to outcome, but there is scant literature on the relationship of patient perceived outcome and attributes of the pain clinic visit, including the patient interaction with the pain management specialist. The primary purpose of this study is to identify attributes of the patient–provider interaction most strongly associated with patient perceived outcome of their clinic visit. The secondary aim is to correlate patient perceived outcome with patient self‐rated overall health.MethodsA patient satisfaction survey conducted via phone approximately 3 weeks after the patient's pain clinic visit.ResultsThe response rate was 60.2%; 987 patient surveys collected between 2006 and 2010 were used in the analysis. Four factors were significantly associated with the outcome: (1) Explanations by the physician of the patient's condition and treatment, (2) clear instructions regarding post‐appointment activities, (3) knowing the patient as a person, and (4) the patient's self‐rated health. In terms of the secondary objective, those who answered very good/excellent regarding their self‐rated health had an 87% increased odds of better (very good/excellent) outcome of their pain clinic visit (or 1.87 times the odds of better outcome) compared with those who answered poor/fair/good.ConclusionsOur results suggest that pain physicians may positively impact patient perceived outcomes of clinic visits by explaining the patient's condition and treatment, providing instructions, and taking the time to understand the patient and their values.

AbstractObjectivesPatient perception of healthcare quality is of growing interest. It has been shown that patient satisfaction is associated with compliance with medical advice and clinical outcome. The 3‐fold purpose of this study was to identify which attributes of the patient–physician interaction most strongly correlated with patients' perceptions of provider quality of care, to identify key drivers that move patients' perception of overall provider quality from “very good” to “excellent,” and to identify features of the pain clinic experience that were most important to patients but were simultaneously perceived as lacking.MethodsRandomized patient satisfaction survey conducted via telephone approximately 3 weeks after the patient's pain clinic visit.ResultsA total of 999 patients participated in the survey over 5 years (estimated response rate 60.2%). Thoroughness, listening, and time spent with the provider were the 3 attributes most strongly associated with the patients' perceptions of provider quality of care, while thoroughness, listening, punctuality, and clear instructions were the drivers of “very good” vs. “excellent” patient perceived overall provider quality. Areas identified for clinic improvement include thoroughness, providing adequate explanations and instructions, and including patient preferences in decision making.ConclusionsThese results may guide pain clinic physicians as they seek to improve patient perceptions of their care and ultimately patient outcomes.

Objective: To assess how physical limitations relate to self-rated health among family medicine patients after adjustment for severity of illness. Design: A telephone survey of family medicine patients, linked with medical record information. Setting: A large family medicine department in Rochester, Minnesota, USA. Subjects: Self-ratings of health were linked to medical records for 804 adult patients. Results: Adjusting for severity and other confounders using multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that having physical limitations was inversely and independently related to good self-rated health (adjusted odds ratio = 0.20, P<0.001). Odds ratios also were lower for high severity of illness (adjusted odds = 0.43). Morbidly obese patients and patients older than 65 years of age also had reduced odds of good self-rated health. Conclusions: In our sample of family medicine patients, part of the disparity in health status experienced by people with physical limitations is attributable to greater severity of illness, age and obesity.