Faculty Bibliography

The COVID-19 pandemic has boosted digital health utilization, raising concerns about increased physicians' after-hours clinical work ("work-outside-work"). The surge in patients' digital messages and additional time spent on work-outside-work by telemedicine providers underscores the need to evaluate the connection between digital health utilization and physicians' after-hours commitments. We examined the impact on physicians' workload from two types of digital demands - patients' messages requesting medical advice (PMARs) sent to physicians' inbox (inbasket), and telemedicine. Our study included 1716 ambulatory-care physicians in New York City regularly practicing between November 2022 and March 2023. Regression analyses assessed primary and interaction effects of (PMARs) and telemedicine on work-outside-work. The study revealed a significant effect of PMARs on physicians' work-outside-work and that this relationship is moderated by physicians' specialties. Non-primary care physicians or specialists experienced a more pronounced effect than their primary care peers. Analysis of their telemedicine load revealed that primary care physicians received fewer PMARs and spent less time in work-outside-work with more telemedicine. Specialists faced increased PMARs and did more work-outside-work as telemedicine visits increased which could be due to the difference in patient panels. Reducing PMAR volumes and efficient inbasket management strategies needed to reduce physicians' work-outside-work. Policymakers need to be cognizant of potential disruptions in physicians carefully balanced workload caused by the digital health services.

BACKGROUND:Currently, only about half of U.S. adults achieve current physical activity guidelines. Routine physical activity is not regularly assessed, nor are patients routinely counseled by their health care provider on achieving recommended levels. The three-question physical activity vital sign (PAVS) was developed to assess physical activity duration and intensity and identify adults not meeting physical activity guidelines. Clinical decision support provided via a best practice advisory in an electronic health record (EHR) system can be triggered as a prompt, reminding health care providers to implement the best practice intervention when appropriate. Remote patient monitoring of physical activity can provide objective data in the EHR. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and clinical utility of embedding the PAVS and a triggered best practice advisor into the EHR in an ambulatory preventive cardiology practice setting to alert providers to patients reporting low physical activity and prompt health care providers to counsel these patients as needed. METHODS:Three components based in the EHR were integrated for the purpose of this study: patients completed the PAVS through their electronic patient portal prior to an office visit; a best practice advisory was created to prompt providers to counsel patients who reported low levels of physical activity; and remote patient monitoring via Fitbit synced to the EHR provided objective physical activity data. The intervention was pilot-tested in the Epic EHR for 1 year (July 1, 2021-June 30, 2022). Qualitative feedback on the intervention from both providers and patients was obtained at the completion of the study. RESULTS:Monthly assessments of the use of the PAVS and best practice advisory and remote patient monitoring were completed. Patients' completion of the PAVS varied from 35% to 48% per month. The best practice advisory was signed by providers between 2% and 65% and was acknowledged by 2% to 22% per month. The majority (58%) of patients were able to sync a Fitbit device to their EHR for remote monitoring. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although uptake of each component needs improvement, this pilot demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating a PA promotion intervention into the EHR. Qualitative feedback provided guidance for future implementation.

BACKGROUND:Mobile health (mHealth) tools are used to collect data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and facilitate the assessment of patients' self-management behaviors outside the clinic environment. Despite the high availability of mHealth diabetes tools, there is a lack of understanding regarding the underlying reasons why these mHealth PRO tools succeed or fail in terms of changing patients' self-management behaviors. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to identify the factors that drive engagement with an mHealth PRO tool and facilitate patients' adoption of self-management behaviors, as well as elicit suggestions for improvement. METHODS:) levels and adherence to self-management behaviors at 12 months among patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. Patients randomized to i-Matter participated in semistructured interviews about their experiences at the 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month study visits. A qualitative analysis of the interviews was conducted by 2 experienced qualitative researchers using conventional qualitative content analysis. RESULTS:The sample comprised 71 patients, of whom 67 (94%) completed at least one interview (n=48, 72% female patients; n=25, 37% identified as African American or Black; mean age 56.65 [SD 9.79] years). We identified 4 overarching themes and 6 subthemes. Theme 1 showed that the patients' reasons for engagement with i-Matter were multifactorial. Patients were driven by internal motivating factors that bolstered their engagement and helped them feel accountable for their diabetes (subtheme 1) and external motivating factors that helped to serve as reminders to be consistent with their self-management behaviors (subtheme 2). Theme 2 revealed that the use of i-Matter changed patients' attitudes toward their disease and their health behaviors in 2 ways: patients developed more positive attitudes about their condition and their ability to effectively self-manage it (subtheme 3), and they also developed a better awareness of their current behaviors, which motivated them to adopt healthier lifestyle behaviors (subtheme 4). Theme 3 showed that patients felt more committed to their health as a result of using i-Matter. Theme 4 highlighted the limitations of i-Matter, which included its technical design (subtheme 5) and the need for more resources to support the PRO data collected and shared through the tool (subtheme 6). CONCLUSIONS:This study isolated internal and external factors that prompted patients to change their views about their diabetes, become more engaged with the intervention and their health, and adopt healthy behaviors. These behavioral mechanisms provide important insights to drive future development of mHealth interventions that could lead to sustained behavior change.

BACKGROUND:Remote patient monitoring (RPM) technologies can support patients living with chronic conditions through self-monitoring of physiological measures and enhance clinicians' diagnostic and treatment decisions. However, to date, large-scale pragmatic RPM implementation within health systems has been limited, and understanding of the impacts of RPM technologies on clinical workflows and care experience is lacking. OBJECTIVE:In this study, we evaluate the early implementation of operational RPM initiatives for chronic disease management within the ambulatory network of an academic medical center in New York City, focusing on the experiences of "early adopter" clinicians and patients. METHODS:Using a multimethod qualitative approach, we conducted (1) interviews with 13 clinicians across 9 specialties considered as early adopters and supporters of RPM and (2) speculative design sessions exploring the future of RPM in clinical care with 21 patients and patient representatives, to better understand experiences, preferences, and expectations of pragmatic RPM use for health care delivery. RESULTS:We identified themes relevant to RPM implementation within the following areas: (1) data collection and practices, including impacts of taking real-world measures and issues of data sharing, security, and privacy; (2) proactive and preventive care, including proactive and preventive monitoring, and proactive interventions and support; and (3) health disparities and equity, including tailored and flexible care and implicit bias. We also identified evidence for mitigation and support to address challenges in each of these areas. CONCLUSIONS:This study highlights the unique contexts, perceptions, and challenges regarding the deployment of RPM in clinical practice, including its potential implications for clinical workflows and work experiences. Based on these findings, we offer implementation and design recommendations for health systems interested in deploying RPM-enabled health care.

BACKGROUND:Overprescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) remains a major issue in outpatient settings. Use of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing but they remain underutilized by physicians and advanced practice providers. A registered nurse (RN)-led model of an electronic health record-integrated CPR (iCPR) for low-acuity ARIs may be an effective alternative to address the barriers to a physician-driven model. METHODS:Following qualitative usability testing, we will conduct a stepped-wedge practice-level cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the effect of iCPR-guided RN care for low acuity patients with ARI. The primary hypothesis to be tested is: Implementation of RN-led iCPR tools will reduce antibiotic prescribing across diverse primary care settings. Specifically, this study aims to: (1) determine the impact of iCPRs on rapid strep test and chest x-ray ordering and antibiotic prescribing rates when used by RNs; (2) examine resource use patterns and cost-effectiveness of RN visits across diverse clinical settings; (3) determine the impact of iCPR-guided care on patient satisfaction; and (4) ascertain the effect of the intervention on RN and physician burnout. DISCUSSION:This study represents an innovative approach to using an iCPR model led by RNs and specifically designed to address inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. This study has the potential to provide guidance on the effectiveness of delegating care of low-acuity patients with ARIs to RNs to increase use of iCPRs and reduce antibiotic overprescribing for ARIs in outpatient settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04255303, Registered February 5 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255303 .

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Remote patient monitoring (RPM) is a tool for patients to share data collected outside of office visits. RPM uses technology and the digital transmission of data to inform clinician decision-making in patient care. Using RPM to track routine physical activity is feasible to operationalize, given contemporary consumer-grade devices that can sync to the electronic health record. Objective monitoring through RPM can be more reliable than patient self-reporting for physical activity. DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:This article reports on four pilot studies that highlight the utility and practicality of RPM for physical activity monitoring in outpatient clinical care. Settings include endocrinology, cardiology, neurology, and pulmonology settings. RESULTS:The four pilot use cases discussed demonstrate how RPM is utilized to monitor physical activity, a shift that has broad implications for prediction, prevention, diagnosis, and management of chronic disease and rehabilitation progress. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:If RPM for physical activity is to be expanded, it will be important to consider that certain populations may face challenges when accessing digital health services. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:RPM technology provides an opportunity for clinicians to obtain objective feedback for monitoring progress of patients in rehabilitation settings. Nurses working in rehabilitation settings may need to provide additional patient education and support to improve uptake.

Indiscriminate use of predictive models incorporating race can reinforce biases present in source data and lead to an exacerbation of health disparities. In some countries, such as the United States, there is therefore a push to remove race from prediction models; however, there are still many prediction models that use race as an input. Biomedical informaticists who are given the responsibility of using these predictive models in healthcare environments are likely to be faced with questions like how to deal with race covariates in these models. Thus, there is a need for a pragmatic framework to help model users think through how to include race in their chosen model so as to avoid inadvertently exacerbating disparities. In this paper, we use the case study of lung cancer screening to propose a simple framework to guide how model users can approach the use (or non-use) of race inputs in the predictive models they are tasked with leveraging in electronic health records and clinical workflows.