Comparing Advanced Practice Providers and Physicians as Providers of e-Visits

Use of Epic Electronic Health Record System for Health Care Research: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic health records (EHRs) enable health data exchange across interconnected systems from varied settings. Epic is among the 5 leading EHR providers and is the most adopted EHR system across the globe. Despite its global reach, there is a gap in the literature detailing how EHR systems such as Epic have been used for health care research.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to synthesize the available literature on use cases of the Epic EHR for research in various areas of clinical and health sciences.

METHODS

We used established scoping review methods and searched 9 major information repositories, including databases and gray literature sources. To categorize the research data, we developed detailed criteria for 5 major research domains to present the results.

RESULTS

We present a comprehensive picture of the method types in 5 research domains. A total of 4669 articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers at each stage, while 206 articles were abstracted. Most studies were from the United States, with a sharp increase in volume from the year 2015 onwards. Most articles focused on clinical care, health services research and clinical decision support. Among research designs, most studies used longitudinal designs, followed by interventional studies implemented at single sites in adult populations. Important facilitators and barriers to the use of Epic and EHRs in general were identified. Important lessons to the use of Epic and other EHRs for research purposes were also synthesized.

CONCLUSIONS

The Epic EHR provides a wide variety of functions that are helpful toward research in several domains, including clinical and population health, quality improvement, and the development of clinical decision support tools. As Epic is reported to be the most globally adopted EHR, researchers can take advantage of its various system features, including pooled data, integration of modules and developing decision support tools. Such research opportunities afforded by the system can contribute to improving quality of care, building health system efficiencies, and conducting population-level studies. Although this review is limited to the Epic EHR system, the larger lessons are generalizable to other EHRs.

The effect of primary care clinician type and care team characteristics on health care costs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate health care costs as a function of assigned primary care clinician type and care team characteristics.

METHODS

Administrative data were collected for 68 family medicine clinicians (40 physicians and 28 nurse practitioners [NPs]/physician assistant [PAs]), on 11 care teams (variable MD, NP and PA on teams), caring for 77,141 patients. We performed a generalized linear mixed multivariable regression model of standardized per member per month (PMPM) median cost as the outcome, with four practice sites included as random effects.

RESULTS

In bivariate analysis, cost was higher in physicians than NP/PAs, in more complex patients, and associated with emergency department (ED) visit rate. On multivariate analysis, patient complexity, ED visit rate and higher patient experience ratings were independently associated with greater PMPM cost. More time in practice was associated with lower PMPM cost. In the adjusted multivariate model, physicians had 8.3% lower median PMPM costs than NP/PAs (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

The primary drivers of greater PMPM cost were patient complexity, ED visits and patient satisfaction.

Factors Associated With Clinician Self-Reported Resource Use in Acute Care and Ambulatory Pediatrics

The objective of this study is to determine predictors of resource use among pediatric providers for common respiratory illnesses. We surveyed pediatric primary care, emergency department (ED)/urgent care (UC), and hospital medicine providers at a free-standing children's hospital system. Five clinical vignettes assessed factors affecting resource use for upper respiratory infections, bronchiolitis, and pneumonia, including provider-type, practice location, tolerance to uncertainty, and medical decision-making behaviors. The response rate was 75.3% (168/223). The ED/UC and primary care providers had higher vignette scores, indicating higher resource use, compared with inpatient providers; advanced practice providers (APPs) had higher vignette scores compared with physicians. In multivariate analysis, being an ED/UC provider, an APP, and greater concern for bad outcomes were associated with higher vignette scores. Overall, provider type and location of practice may predict resource use for children with respiratory illnesses. Interventions targeted at test-maximizing providers may improve quality of care and reduce resource burden.

Impact of Asynchronous Electronic Communication-Based Visits on Clinical Outcomes and Health Care Delivery: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic visits (e-visits) involve asynchronous communication between clinicians and patients through a secure web-based platform, such as a patient portal, to elicit symptoms and determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. E-visits are now reimbursable through Medicare due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The state of evidence regarding e-visits, such as the impact on clinical outcomes and health care delivery, is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To address this gap, we examine how e-visits have impacted clinical outcomes and health care quality, access, utilization, and costs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review; MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 through October 2020 for peer-reviewed studies that assessed e-visits' impacts on clinical and health care delivery outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 1859 papers, 19 met the inclusion criteria. E-visit usage was associated with improved or comparable clinical outcomes, especially for chronic disease management (eg, diabetes care, blood pressure management). The impact on quality of care varied across conditions. Quality of care was equivalent or better for chronic conditions, but variable quality was observed in infection management (eg, appropriate antibiotic prescribing). Similarly, the impact on health care utilization varied across conditions (eg, lower utilization for dermatology but mixed impact in primary care). Health care costs were lower for e-visits than those for in-person visits for a wide range of conditions (eg, dermatology and acute visits). No studies examined the impact of e-visits on health care access. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions about effectiveness or impact on care delivery from the studies that were included because many used observational designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the evidence suggests e-visits may provide clinical outcomes that are comparable to those provided by in-person care and reduce health care costs for certain health care conditions. At the same time, there is mixed evidence on health care quality, especially regarding infection management (eg, sinusitis, urinary tract infections, conjunctivitis). Further studies are needed to test implementation strategies that might improve delivery (eg, clinical decision support for antibiotic prescribing) and to assess which conditions can be managed via e-visits.

Emergency Physician and Advanced Practice Provider Diagnostic Testing and Admission Decisions in Chest Pain and Abdominal Pain

OBJECTIVE

We compare utilization of diagnostic resources and admissions in emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain and abdominal pain when managed by advanced practice providers (APPs) and physicians.

METHODS

We used 2016 to 2019 data from a national emergency medicine group. We compared visits managed by physicians and APPs based on demographics and observed resource utilization (labs, radiography, computed tomography) use and hospital admission/transfer, stratified by patient age. To reduce selection bias, we created inverse propensity score weights (IPWs). To estimate the average treatment effect for APP visits for each outcome, we included IPWs in a multivariable linear probability model with a dummy variable indicating treatment by an APP and used a facility fixed effect. We then estimated the average treatment effect comparing physician to APP visit for all visits and for discharged visits separately, stratified by the study outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed using different cohort definitions and adjusting for past medical history.

RESULTS

In chest pain, we included 77,568 visits seen by 1,011 APPs and 586,031 visits seen by 1,588 physicians. In abdominal pain, we included 184,812 ED visits seen by 1,080 APPs and 761,230 visits seen by 1,689 physicians. For both chest pain and abdominal pain visits, physicians saw more older adult patients (55+ years) and admitted a higher percentage of visits than APPs. For chest pain, physicians saw more circulatory system diseases (70.7% vs. 58.6%); APPs saw more respiratory system diseases (17.1% vs. 9.8%). In abdominal pain, emergency physicians saw more digestive system diseases (28.5% vs. 23.3%); APPs saw more genitourinary system diseases. After matching with IPW, predicted probabilities of laboratory, radiology, and admissions either did not vary or were slightly lower for APPs compared to physicians for all outcomes. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results, including controlling for past medical history.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic testing and hospitalization rates for chest pain and abdominal pain between APPs and physicians is largely similar after matching for severity and complexity. This suggests that APPs do not have observably higher use of ED and hospital resources in these conditions in this national group.

The Impact of Advanced Practice Provider Staffing on Emergency Department Care: Productivity, Flow, Safety, and Experience

OBJECTIVES

We examined emergency department (ED) advanced practice provider (APP) productivity and how APP staffing impacted ED productivity, safety, flow, and experience.

METHODS

We used 2014 to 2018 data from a national emergency medicine group. The exposure was APP coverage: APP hours as a percentage of total clinician hours at the ED-day level. Multivariable regression was used to assess the relationship between APP coverage and productivity outcomes (patients/clinician hour, relative value units [RVUs]/clinician hour, RVUs/visit, and RVUs/salary-adjusted hour), flow outcomes (length of stay and left without treatment), safety (72-hour returns, incident reports), and experience (Press-Ganey scores), adjusting for patient and facility characteristics.

RESULTS

In 13.02 million patient visits in 105,863 ED-days across 94 EDs from 2014 to 2018, nurse practitioners and physician assistants managed 5.4 and 18.6% of visits independently, 74.6% by emergency physicians alone, and 1.4% jointly. APP visits had lower RVUs/visit (2.8 vs. 3.7) and lower patients/hour (1.1 vs. 2.2) compared to physician visits. Higher APP coverage (by 10%) at the ED-day level was associated with lower patients/clinician hour by 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.15 to -0.10) and lower RVUs/clinician hour by 0.4 (95% CI = -0.5 to -0.3). There was no impact of increasing APP coverage on RVUs/salary-adjusted hour or RVUs/visit. There was also no effect of increasing APP coverage on flow, safety, or patient experience.

CONCLUSION

In this group, APPs treated less complex visits and half as many patients/hour compared to physicians. Higher APP coverage allowed physicians to treat higher-acuity cases. We found no economies of scale for APP coverage, suggesting that increasing APP staffing may not lower staffing costs. However, there were also no adverse observed effects of APP coverage on ED flow, clinical safety, or patient experience, suggesting little risk of increased APP coverage on clinical care delivery.

Uptake and patient and provider communication modality preferences of virtual visits in primary care: a retrospective cohort study in Canada

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the uptake of a platform for virtual visits in primary care, examine patient and physician preferences for virtual communication methods and report on characteristics of visits and patients experience of care.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Primary care practices within five regions in Ontario, Canada after 18 months of access to virtual care services.

PARTICIPANTS

326 primary care providers and 14 291 registered patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Providers used a platform that allowed them to connect with their patients through synchronous (audio/video) and/or asynchronous (secure messaging) communication.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

User-level data from the platforms including patient demographics, practice characteristics, communication modality used, visit characteristics and patients' satisfaction.

RESULTS

Among the participants, 44% of registered patients and 60% of registered providers used the platform at least once. Among patient users, 51% completed at least one virtual visit. The majority of virtual visits (94%) involved secure messaging. The most common patient requests were for medication prescriptions (24%) and follow-up from previous appointment (22%). The most common provider request was to follow-up on test results (59%). Providers indicated that 81% of virtual visits required no follow-up for that issue and 99% of patients reported that they would use virtual care services again.

CONCLUSIONS

While there are a growing number of primary care video visit services, our study found that both patients and providers in rostered practices prefer secure messaging over video. Despite fears that virtual visits would be overused by patients, when patients connected with their own primary care provider, many virtual visits appeared to replace in-person visits, and patients did not overwhelm physicians with requests. This approach may improve access and continuity in primary care.

Electronic Consultation in Primary Care Between Providers and Patients: Systematic Review

Background

Governments and health care providers are keen to find innovative ways to deliver care more efficiently. Interest in electronic consultation (e-consultation) has grown, but the evidence of benefit is uncertain.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the evidence of delivering e-consultation using secure email and messaging or video links in primary care.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted on the use and application of e-consultations in primary care. We searched 7 international databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, EconLit, and Web of Science; 1999-2017), identifying 52 relevant studies. Papers were screened against a detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Independent dual data extraction was conducted and assessed for quality. The resulting evidence was synthesized using thematic analysis.

Results

This review included 57 studies from a range of countries, mainly the United States (n=30) and the United Kingdom (n=13). There were disparities in uptake and utilization toward more use by younger, employed adults. Patient responses to e-consultation were mixed. Patients reported satisfaction with services and improved self-care, communication, and engagement with clinicians. Evidence for the acceptability and ease of use was strong, especially for those with long-term conditions and patients located in remote regions. However, patients were concerned about the privacy and security of their data. For primary health care staff, e-consultation delivers challenges around time management, having the correct technological infrastructure, whether it offers a comparable standard of clinical quality, and whether it improves health outcomes.

Conclusions

E-consultations may improve aspects of care delivery, but the small scale of many of the studies and low adoption rates leave unanswered questions about usage, quality, cost, and sustainability. We need to improve e-consultation implementation, demonstrate how e-consultations will not increase disparities in access, provide better reassurance to patients about privacy, and incorporate e-consultation as part of a manageable clinical workflow.

Caring electronically for young outpatients who have epilepsy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to review electronic tools that might improve the delivery of epilepsy care, reduce medical care costs, and empower families to improve self-management capability.

METHOD

We reviewed the epilepsy-specific literature about self-management, electronic patient-reported or provider-reported outcomes, on-going remote surveillance, and alerting/warning systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The improved care delivery system that we envision includes self-management, electronic patient (or provider)-reported outcomes, on-going remote surveillance, and alerting/warning systems. This system and variants have the potential to reduce seizure burden through improved management, keep children out of the emergency department and hospital, and even reduce the number of outpatient visits.