OBJECTIVE: To assess the implementation of teleneurology (TN), including patient and clinician experiences, during the coronavirus respiratory disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We studied synchronous (video visit) and asynchronous (store-and-forward, patient-portal evaluation, remote monitoring) TN utilization in the Mount Sinai Health System Neurology Department in New York, 2 months before and after the start of our department's response to the pandemic in mid-March 2020. Weekly division meetings enabled ongoing assessments and analysis of barriers and facilitators according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change models. We used postvisit surveys of clinicians (from April 13 to May 15, 2020) and patients (from May 11 to 15, 2020) to determine technology platforms used, and TN experience and acceptability, using Likert scales (1 = very poor/unlikely to 5 = very good/likely). RESULTS: Over the 4-month period, 117 TN clinicians (n = 14 subspecialties) conducted 4,225 TN visits with 3,717 patients (52 pre- vs 4,173 post-COVID-19). No asynchronous TN services were delivered. Post-COVID-19, the number of TN clinicians, subspecialties performing TN, and visits increased by 963%, 133%, and 7,925%, respectively. Mean acceptability among patients and clinicians was 4.7 (SD 0.6) and 3.4 (SD 1.6), respectively. Most video visits were completed using Epic MyChart (78.5%) and Zoom (8.1%). TN implementation facilitators included Medicare geographic restriction waivers, development of clinician educational materials, and MyChart outreach programs for patients experiencing technical difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: A significant expansion of TN utilization accompanied the COVID-19 response. Patients found TN more acceptable than did clinicians. Proactive application of an implementation framework facilitated rapid and effective TN expansion.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the implementation of teleneurology (TN), including patient and clinician experiences, during the coronavirus respiratory disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We studied synchronous (video visit) and asynchronous (store-and-forward, patient-portal evaluation, remote monitoring) TN utilization in the Mount Sinai Health System Neurology Department in New York, 2 months before and after the start of our department's response to the pandemic in mid-March 2020. Weekly division meetings enabled ongoing assessments and analysis of barriers and facilitators according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change models. We used postvisit surveys of clinicians (from April 13 to May 15, 2020) and patients (from May 11 to 15, 2020) to determine technology platforms used, and TN experience and acceptability, using Likert scales (1 = very poor/unlikely to 5 = very good/likely). RESULTS: Over the 4-month period, 117 TN clinicians (n = 14 subspecialties) conducted 4,225 TN visits with 3,717 patients (52 pre- vs 4,173 post-COVID-19). No asynchronous TN services were delivered. Post-COVID-19, the number of TN clinicians, subspecialties performing TN, and visits increased by 963%, 133%, and 7,925%, respectively. Mean acceptability among patients and clinicians was 4.7 (SD 0.6) and 3.4 (SD 1.6), respectively. Most video visits were completed using Epic MyChart (78.5%) and Zoom (8.1%). TN implementation facilitators included Medicare geographic restriction waivers, development of clinician educational materials, and MyChart outreach programs for patients experiencing technical difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: A significant expansion of TN utilization accompanied the COVID-19 response. Patients found TN more acceptable than did clinicians. Proactive application of an implementation framework facilitated rapid and effective TN expansion.
Authors: Scott N Grossman; Steve C Han; Laura J Balcer; Arielle Kurzweil; Harold Weinberg; Steven L Galetta; Neil A Busis Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Cheryl B Stetler; Marcia W Legro; Carolyn M Wallace; Candice Bowman; Marylou Guihan; Hildi Hagedorn; Barbara Kimmel; Nancy D Sharp; Jeffrey L Smith Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: E Ray Dorsey; Alistair M Glidden; Melissa R Holloway; Gretchen L Birbeck; Lee H Schwamm Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Lawrence R Wechsler; Bart M Demaerschalk; Lee H Schwamm; Opeolu M Adeoye; Heinrich J Audebert; Christopher V Fanale; David C Hess; Jennifer J Majersik; Karin V Nystrom; Mathew J Reeves; Wayne D Rosamond; Jeffrey A Switzer Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jaime M Hatcher-Martin; Jamie Lynn Adams; Eric R Anderson; Riley Bove; Tamika M Burrus; Mahan Chehrenama; Mary Dolan O'Brien; Dawn S Eliashiv; Deniz Erten-Lyons; Barbara S Giesser; Lauren R Moo; Pushpa Narayanaswami; Marvin A Rossi; Madhu Soni; Nauman Tariq; Jack W Tsao; Bert B Vargas; Scott A Vota; Scott R Wessels; Hannah Planalp; Raghav Govindarajan Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Bart M Demaerschalk; Jill Berg; Brian W Chong; Hartmut Gross; Karin Nystrom; Opeolu Adeoye; Lee Schwamm; Lawrence Wechsler; Sallie Whitchurch Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2017-04-06 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Byron J Powell; Thomas J Waltz; Matthew J Chinman; Laura J Damschroder; Jeffrey L Smith; Monica M Matthieu; Enola K Proctor; JoAnn E Kirchner Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Guangxia Meng; Carrie McAiney; Christopher M Perlman; Ian McKillop; Therese Tisseverasinghe; Helen H Chen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 2.908