Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM STATEMENT/UNASSIGNED:As the role of teleneurology expands, it is important to prepare trainees to perform virtual encounters proficiently. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:We created a comprehensive multimodality teleneurology curriculum for residents to teach key aspects of telehealth encounters including the virtual examination and skill development across several environments. METHODS AND CURRICULUM DESCRIPTION/UNASSIGNED:We developed and implemented a teleneurology curriculum focused on teaching the virtual neurologic examination, measuring teleneurology competency, and providing opportunities for trainees to perform telehealth encounters in multiple settings. Residents (N = 22) were first surveyed on what methods would be most helpful to learn teleneurology. Trainees observed a faculty member conducting a teleneurology visit with another faculty member playing a patient. Residents then practiced a teleneurology encounter during a 10-minute objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) at a simulation center. After positive feedback from the fall of 2020, we adapted the OSCE to be completely remote in the spring of 2021 for senior residents. Trainees then performed teleneurology visits during their continuity clinics and subspecialty clinic rotations. RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT DATA/UNASSIGNED:< 0.05) and requested more access to simulations during training. Sensorimotor assessment and adequate visualization of the affected limb were identified as areas for improvement. DISCUSSION AND LESSONS LEARNED/UNASSIGNED:Our multimodal 3-year teleneurology curriculum provides opportunities for residents to learn and apply teleneurology. Survey tools helped strengthen the curriculum to optimize educational potential. We implemented a teleneurology simulation with and without the use of a simulation center. We plan to expand our teleneurology clinical and simulation experiences to trainees based on our data and further developments in teleneurology and to track the progress of teleneurology skills as residents advance through training.

Landmark changes to documenting and coding for office or other outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes were implemented on January 1, 2021. To decrease clinicians' administrative burden, many documentation requirements were eliminated. In addition, major changes were made in how medical decision making and time spent on the date of the encounter are used to determine the level of service. On January 1, 2023, these changes were extended to inpatient and observation E/M services. The level of service in both inpatient and outpatient settings can now be selected based on the total time dedicated to the patient's care on the day of the encounter or the new method of medical decision making. This article discusses the optimal ways to document and code for inpatient hospital and observation encounters after January 1, 2023.

OBJECTIVE:We assessed headache clinicians' viewpoints on potential remote access to patients' digital headache diary data and the practicalities of data utilization. BACKGROUND:With the ubiquitous nature of electronic medical records and the existence of remote monitoring (RM) for many medical conditions, there is now the potential for remote symptom monitoring for patients with headache disorders. While patients are asked to utilize headache diaries, clinicians may or may not have access to the data before patient visits, and their perspectives regarding this emerging technology are currently unknown. METHODS:After recruiting participants from the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Network, the American Headache Society Special Interest Section listservs, and Twitter and Facebook social media platforms, we conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the United States from various types of institutions and asked them their perspectives on remote access to patient headache diary data. We transcribed the interviews, which were then coded by two independent coders. Themes and sub-themes were developed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS:All clinicians felt the RM data needed to be integrated into the electronic medical record. Six themes emerged from the interviews: (i) Clinician perspectives on how RM could be beneficial but at other times could create obstacles/challenges, (ii) operationally, data integration could benefit headache care, (iii) there should be initial logistical considerations for bringing RM into clinical care, (iv) education may need to be provided to both patients and clinicians, (v) there are likely research benefits associated with RM, and (vi) additional suggestions for considering potential integration of RM into practice. CONCLUSIONS:While headache clinicians had mixed opinions on the benefits/challenges that RM presents to patient care, patient satisfaction, and visit time, new ideas emerged that may help advance the field.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, about half of patients from populations that sought care in neurology tried complementary and integrative therapies (CITs). With the increased utilization of telehealth services, we sought to determine whether patients also increased their use of virtual CITs. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We examined datasets from two separate cross-sectional surveys that included cohorts of patients with neurological disorders. One was a dataset from a study that examined patient and provider experiences with teleneurology visits; the other was a study that assessed patients with a history of COVID-19 infection who presented for neurologic evaluation. We assessed and reported the use of virtual (and non-virtual) CITs using descriptive statistics, and determined whether there were clinical characteristics that predicted the use of CITs using logistic regression analyses. Findings/UNASSIGNED:Patients who postponed medical treatment for non-COVID-19-related problems during the pandemic were more likely to seek CITs. Virtual exercise, virtual psychotherapy, and relaxation/meditation smartphone applications were the most frequent types of virtual CITs chosen by patients. In both studies, age was a key demographic factor associated with mobile/virtual CIT usage. Interpretations/UNASSIGNED:Our investigation demonstrates that virtual CIT-related technologies were utilized in the treatment of neurologic conditions during the pandemic, particularly by those patients who deferred non-COVID-related care.

One sentence summary: The purpose of this investigation was to expand the evidence base on CITs delivered by telehealth by evaluating CIT use in patients who presented to a large urban tertiary care neurology practice and to examine predictors of CIT use during the pandemic.
Background(s): Patients with neurological disorders may seek treatment options in addition to those recommended by their providers. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, about half of patients from populations that sought care in neurology tried complementary and integrative therapies (CITs). Given the reductions in in-person visits and the increases in teleneurology visits, we sought to determine whether patients increased their use of virtual complementary and integrative therapies.
Method(s): By examining two separate datasets that included cohorts of patients with neurological disorders, we assessed patients' use of virtual (and non-virtual) CITs and determined whether there were clinical characteristics that predicted their use. The two studies that comprised this report included one that examined patient and provider experiences with teleneurology visits, and another that assessed patients with a history of COVID-19 infection who presented for neurologic evaluation.
Result(s): Patients who postponed medical treatment for non-COVID- 19- related problems during the pandemic were more likely to seek CITs. Virtual exercise, virtual psychotherapy and relaxation/meditation smartphone applications were the most frequent types of virtual CITs chosen by patients. In both studies, age was a key demographic factor associated with mobile/ virtual CIT usage.
Conclusion(s): Data from our investigations demonstrated that, in addition to its other roles in teleneurology, CIT-related technologies might be utilized in the treatment of neurologic conditions

ABSTRACT/UNASSIGNED:This article discusses the optimal ways to document and code for outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes. Since the changes for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 99202-99215 were finalized for 2021, they have been modified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in their Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and by technical corrections issued on March 9, 2021. The 21st Century Cures Act mandated that patients can access their notes and test results immediately. These developments have transformed medical documentation and coding for outpatient E/M services. One year in, the authors have a better understanding of the subtleties of documenting and accurately determining levels of service for outpatient encounters using these new rules and regulations, and they share key insights gained by experience with the new system.

Telehealth services complement in-person neurologic care. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) supports patient access to telehealth services regardless of location; coverage for telehealth services by all subscriber benefits and insurance; equitable provider reimbursement; simplified state licensing requirements easing access to virtual care; and expanding telehealth research and quality initiatives. The roles and responsibilities of providers should be clearly delineated in telehealth service models.

Medical services can be conceptualized as falling into two categories: procedures and cognitive care. A procedure is defined as a surgical, medical, or diagnostic test performed on a patient, such as an x-ray, wound suture, surgery, or physical therapy treatment. Cognitive care, also known as Evaluation and Management (E/M) services, involves performing a medical history along with a physical examination and possibly ordering or reviewing diagnostic tests before formulating a medical opinion and initiating a care plan. The uniform language and categorization of all medical services is contained in the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) manual by the American Medical Association, which precisely describes all medical services using non-overlapping definitions and descriptions. The codes defined by CPT are the most commonly accepted set of codes used to file medical claims. In 2000, the US Department of Health and Human Services designated CPT to be the national reporting standard used in conjunction with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). CPT codes used today for E/M services were established in 1995 and define the components of history, examination, and medical decision making necessary to determine the level of each cognitive care service as delivered by a physician or other qualified health care professionals (eg, advanced practice providers). E/M rules were modified in 1997 and allowed some specialty services, such as neurology, to substitute a single system examination for a general, multisystem physical examination. Although new E/M codes were added over the years, the code descriptions and documentation guidelines for E/M services for outpatient and inpatient care remained essentially unchanged from 1997 through 2020. Most of the work performed by neurologists is E/M services, and the rules for coding outpatient care will change dramatically on January 1, 2021. This article discusses the rationale for these coding changes and explains how they are to be applied in the clinical setting.