Sarah Heppner1, Nicholas M Mohr2,3,4, Knute D Carter5, Fred Ullrich6, Kimberly A S Merchant6, Marcia M Ward6. 1. Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America. 3. Department of Anesthesia Critical Care, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America. 6. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) funded the Evidence-Based Tele-Emergency Network Grant Program (EB TNGP) to serve the dual purpose of providing telehealth services in rural emergency departments (teleED) and systematically collecting data to inform the telehealth evidence base. This provided a unique opportunity to examine trends across multiple teleED networks and examine heterogeneity in processes and outcomes. METHOD AND FINDINGS: Six health systems received funding from HRSA under the EB TNGP to implement teleED services and they did so to 65 hospitals (91% rural) in 11 states. Three of the grantees provided teleED services to a general patient population while the remaining three grantees provided teleED services to specialized patient populations (i.e., stroke, behavioral health, critically ill children). Over a 26-month period (November 1, 2015 -December 31, 2017), each grantee submitted patient-level data for all their teleED encounters on a uniform set of measures to the data coordinating center. The six grantees reported a total of 4,324 teleED visits and 99.86% were technically successful. The teleED patients were predominantly adult, White, not Latinx, and covered by Medicare or private insurance. Across grantees, 7% of teleED patients needed resuscitation services, 58% were rated as emergent, and 30% were rated as urgent. Across grantees, 44.2% of teleED patients were transferred to another inpatient facility, 26.0% had a routine discharge, and 24.5% were admitted to the local inpatient facility. For the three grantees who served a general patient population, the most frequent presenting complaints for which teleED was activated were chest pain (25.7%), injury or trauma (17.1%), stroke symptoms (9.9%), mental/behavioral health (9.8%), and cardiac arrest (9.5%). The teleED consultation began before the local clinician exam in 37.8% of patients for the grantees who served a general patient population, but in only 1.9% of patients for the grantees who provided specialized services. CONCLUSIONS: Grantees used teleED services for a representative rural population with urgent or emergent symptoms largely resulting in transfer to a distant hospital or inpatient admission locally. TeleED was often available as the first point of contact before a local provider examination. This finding points to the important role of teleED in improving access for rural ED patients.
BACKGROUND: The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) funded the Evidence-Based Tele-Emergency Network Grant Program (EB TNGP) to serve the dual purpose of providing telehealth services in rural emergency departments (teleED) and systematically collecting data to inform the telehealth evidence base. This provided a unique opportunity to examine trends across multiple teleED networks and examine heterogeneity in processes and outcomes. METHOD AND FINDINGS: Six health systems received funding from HRSA under the EB TNGP to implement teleED services and they did so to 65 hospitals (91% rural) in 11 states. Three of the grantees provided teleED services to a general patient population while the remaining three grantees provided teleED services to specialized patient populations (i.e., stroke, behavioral health, critically illchildren). Over a 26-month period (November 1, 2015 -December 31, 2017), each grantee submitted patient-level data for all their teleED encounters on a uniform set of measures to the data coordinating center. The six grantees reported a total of 4,324 teleED visits and 99.86% were technically successful. The teleED patients were predominantly adult, White, not Latinx, and covered by Medicare or private insurance. Across grantees, 7% of teleED patients needed resuscitation services, 58% were rated as emergent, and 30% were rated as urgent. Across grantees, 44.2% of teleED patients were transferred to another inpatient facility, 26.0% had a routine discharge, and 24.5% were admitted to the local inpatient facility. For the three grantees who served a general patient population, the most frequent presenting complaints for which teleED was activated were chest pain (25.7%), injury or trauma (17.1%), stroke symptoms (9.9%), mental/behavioral health (9.8%), and cardiac arrest (9.5%). The teleED consultation began before the local clinician exam in 37.8% of patients for the grantees who served a general patient population, but in only 1.9% of patients for the grantees who provided specialized services. CONCLUSIONS: Grantees used teleED services for a representative rural population with urgent or emergent symptoms largely resulting in transfer to a distant hospital or inpatient admission locally. TeleED was often available as the first point of contact before a local provider examination. This finding points to the important role of teleED in improving access for rural ED patients.
Authors: Nicholas M Mohr; Tracy Young; Karisa K Harland; Brian Skow; Amy Wittrock; Amanda Bell; Marcia M Ward Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: C Holly A Andrilla; Davis G Patterson; Lisa A Garberson; Cynthia Coulthard; Eric H Larson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Marcia M Ward; Kimberly A S Merchant; Knute D Carter; Xi Zhu; Fred Ullrich; Amy Wittrock; Amanda Bell Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Nicholas M Mohr; Karisa K Harland; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Amanda Bell; Dan M Shane; Marcia M Ward Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Brendan G Carr; Ariel J Bowman; Catherine S Wolff; Michael T Mullen; Daniel N Holena; Charles C Branas; Douglas J Wiebe Journal: Injury Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: M Kennedy Hall; Kevin Burns; Michael Carius; Mitchel Erickson; Jane Hall; Arjun Venkatesh Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Morgan B Swanson; Aspen C Miller; Marcia M Ward; Fred Ullrich; Kimberly As Merchant; Nicholas M Mohr Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 6.344
Authors: Aspen C Miller; Marcia M Ward; Fred Ullrich; Kimberly A S Merchant; Morgan B Swanson; Nicholas M Mohr Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Mochamad Muska Nataliansyah; Kimberly A S Merchant; James A Croker; Xi Zhu; Nicholas M Mohr; James P Marcin; Hicham Rahmouni; Marcia M Ward Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-07-02 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Morgan B Swanson; Aspen C Miller; Marcia M Ward; Fred Ullrich; Kimberly As Merchant; Nicholas M Mohr Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 6.344
Authors: Nicholas M Mohr; Kalyn D Campbell; Morgan B Swanson; Fred Ullrich; Kimberly A Merchant; Marcia M Ward Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2020-01-05 Impact factor: 6.344