Myers, Jane F.

Introduction: The once-in-a-generation COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the pace at which virtual care (VC) was advanced to triage, evaluate, and care for patients. An early adopter of VC delivery, Mayo Clinic had provided video visits and other remote care options for more than 5 years, yet the need for VC during the pandemic surpassed our available capacity for telehealth care. Methods: To continue providing high-quality care while preventing exposure of patients and staff to high-risk environments, staff from Primary Care and Express Care (minor acute services) collaborated to expand the outpatient VC service to triage patients with acute or chronic symptoms and to address concerns that could be managed remotely. We aimed to maximize the treatment options available outside of high-cost settings and also aimed to accelerate development of longer-term solutions for improving care coordination and continuous population management. Results: Patient use of virtual visits showed an unprecedented increase after changes were implemented that expanded the existing virtual visit menu, facilitated patient self-triage and direct scheduling, streamlined physical connections for virtual appointments, and incorporated additional language (medical interpreter) support. The combination of patient convenience, ease of scheduling, and added safety for providers and patients, in conjunction with other telehealth options, resulted in a better overall patient experience. Conclusion: Any organization that is considering deploying a sustainable program of VC must put patient needs and safety at the center. Organizations should seize opportunities to agilely adjust and advance any emergency-response solutions to serve a longer-term purpose.

Although U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved and CLIA-waived point-of-care (POC) molecular systems are being implemented in routine clinical practice, instrument reliability, test performance in the hands of end users, and the potential for environmental contamination resulting from use of POC molecular systems have not been extensively evaluated.

Objective The objective of this research paper is to compare antibiotic treatment, follow-up rates, and types of follow-up encounters among eVisits, phone calls, and in-person encounters for pediatric conjunctivitis. Study design A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients evaluated for conjunctivitis between May 1, 2016 and May 1, 2017, was performed. A total of 101 eVisits, 202 in-person retail clinic visits, and 202 nurse phone calls for conjunctivitis were manually reviewed for outcomes. Exclusion criteria included previous encounter for conjunctivitis in the past 14 days, treatment with an oral antibiotic at the initial encounter, or patient outside Minnesota at the time of encounter. Comparison among the three encounter types with regard to follow-up rates, follow-up encounter type within 14 days of initial evaluation, and prescribing rates was performed. Results Patients completing non-face-to-face encounters were significantly more likely to have follow-up care (34.6% and 45.5%) than those who had a face-to-face visit at the retail clinic (7.4%), p ≤ 0.0001. Patients initially evaluated by eVisit were more likely to have follow-up at the retail clinic while patients initially evaluated by phone call were more likely to have follow-up in their primary care office. Treatment rates with antibiotics were significantly higher in phone call encounters (41.6%) than in eVisits (25.7%) or face-to-face encounters (19.8%), p < 0.0001. Conclusions Non-face-to-face visits have significantly higher rates of follow-up when compared to face-to-face encounters. Antibiotic prescribing is greater with phone call triage encounters; however, there was no significant difference in antibiotic prescribing rates between eVisits and face-to-face visits. Follow-up type varied according to site of initial encounter.

ABSTRACT A process employing patient- or parent-collected pharyngeal swabs for group A Streptococcus (GAS) testing would expedite diagnosis and treatment, reduce patient exposure to the health care setting, and decrease health care costs. Our aim was to determine the concordance between patient- or parent-collected (self-collected) and health care worker (HCW)-collected pharyngeal swabs for detection of GAS by PCR. From 9 October 2012 to 21 March 2013, patients presenting with a sore throat meeting criteria for GAS testing and not meeting criteria for severe disease were offered the opportunity to collect their own pharyngeal swab. The HCW also collected a swab. Paired swabs were tested by GAS real-time PCR, allowing semiquantitative comparisons between positive results. Of the 402 participants, 206 had a swab collected by the patient and 196 a swab collected by the parent. The percent positivity results were 33.3% for HCW-collected swabs and 34.3% for self-collected swabs ( P = 0.41). The overall concordance between the two collection strategies was 94.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3 to 96.0). Twenty-four of the paired swabs had discordant results, with 10 and 14 positives detected only with the HCW- and self-collected swabs, respectively ( P = 0.41). The person collecting the swab in the self-collected arm, the order of collection, and prior swab collection training did not influence results. Among the 124 specimens that were positive by both collection methods, the amount of GAS DNA was higher in the self-collected versus the HCW-collected swabs ( P = 0.008). Self-collected pharyngeal swabs provide a reliable alternative to HCW collection for detection of GAS and offer a strategy for improved health care delivery.