Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:We determined inter-modality (in-person vs telemedicine examination) and inter-rater agreement for telemedicine assessments (2 different examiners) using the Telemedicine Buffalo Concussion Physical Examination (Tele-BCPE), a standardized concussion examination designed for remote use. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients referred for an initial evaluation for concussion were invited to participate. Participants had a brief initial assessment by the treating neurologist. After a patient granted informed consent to participate in the study, the treating neurologist obtained a concussion-related history before leaving the examination room. Using the Tele-BCPE, 2 virtual examinations in no specific sequence were then performed from nearby rooms by the treating neurologist and another neurologist. After the 2 telemedicine examinations, the treating physician returned to the examination room to perform the in-person examination. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) determined inter-modality validity (in-person vs remote examination by the same examiner) and inter-rater reliability (between remote examinations done by 2 examiners) of overall scores of the Tele-BCPE within the comparison datasets. Cohen's kappa, κ, measured levels of agreement of dichotomous ratings (abnormality present vs absent) on individual components of the Tele-BCPE to determine inter-modality and inter-rater agreement. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< 0.001]) were reliable (ICC >0.70). There was at least substantial inter-modality agreement (κ ≥ 0.61) for 25 of 29 examination elements. For inter-rater agreement (2 telemedicine examinations), there was at least substantial agreement for 8 of 29 examination elements. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:Our study demonstrates that the Tele-BCPE yielded consistent clinical results, whether conducted in-person or virtually by the same examiner, or when performed virtually by 2 different examiners. The Tele-BCPE is a valid indicator of neurologic examination findings as determined by an in-person concussion assessment. The Tele-BCPE may also be performed with excellent levels of reliability by neurologists with different training and backgrounds in the virtual setting. These findings suggest that a combination of in-person and telemedicine modalities, or involvement of 2 telemedicine examiners for the same patient, can provide consistent concussion assessments across the continuum of care.

Digital health technologies (DHTs) can transform neurological assessments, improving quality and continuity of care. In the United States, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the safety and efficacy of these technologies, employing a detailed regulatory process that classifies devices based on risk and requires rigorous review and post-market surveillance. Following FDA approval, DHTs enter the Current Procedural Terminology, Relative Value Scale Update Committee, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services coding and valuation processes leading to coverage and payment decisions. DHT adoption is challenged by rapid technologic advancements, an inconsistent evidence base, marketing discrepancies, ambiguous coding guidance, and variable health insurance coverage. Regulators, policymakers, and payers will need to develop better methods to evaluate these promising technologies and guide their deployment. This includes striking a balance between patient safety and clinical effectiveness versus promotion of innovation, especially as DHTs increasingly incorporate artificial intelligence. Data validity, cybersecurity, risk management, societal, and ethical responsibilities should be addressed. Regulatory advances can support adoption of these promising tools by ensuring DHTs are safe, effective, accessible, and equitable.

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.