Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, United States.
Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, United States.
Int J Med Inform. 2021 Mar;147:104365. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104365. Epub 2020 Dec 25.
Social distancing requirements during COVID-19 pose a challenge to conducting traditional academic detailing, which typically involves in-person peer education visits to improve patient outcomes. The main alternative is to conduct virtual academic detailing delivered through web-based technology, but this approach is fraught with many challenges. This study aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual academic detailing program implemented among health care providers.
The academic detailing program focused on appropriate opioid prescribing and chronic non-cancer pain management among a sample of providers. An initial in-person visit was followed by a virtual visit up to 8 weeks later. Videoconferencing was used to conduct the virtual visit with telephone as a backup. Feasibility was assessed whether the virtual visits could happen, and acceptability was assessed by provider satisfaction. Validated measures of Provider Satisfaction with Academic Detailing (PSAD) and Detailer Assessment of Visit Effectiveness (DAVE) with a 5-point Likert-type scale were used. Higher scores corresponded to higher satisfaction and greater perceived effectiveness. Non-parametric and parametric statistical tests were used to compare instrument summary scores across visits and between groups. Pairwise analyses across visits only included instrument responses for providers who participated in both visits and completed both surveys in their entirety.
There were 127 (90 %) initial in-person visits completed out of 141 visits scheduled, with a survey response rate of 96 %. Out of 120 virtual follow-up visits scheduled, 92 (77 %) were conducted, and 56 surveys (61 %) were collected. There was a high level of satisfaction with the initial and follow up virtual academic detailing visits, though, among providers who participated in both visits and had completed surveys (n = 50), initial visits had slightly higher scores (mean difference = -2.94 [95 % Confidence intervals: -4.38, -1.50], p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in detailer perception across the two visits as seen in the scale summary score (0.05 [-0.56, 0.66], p = 0.86) and two individually reported items related to feasibility (0.07 [-0.29, 0.42], p = 0.72) and conversation (-0.05 [-0.28, 0.17], p = 0.63). Forty-one (44.6 %) virtual visits were conducted using WebEx, where video and screen sharing of visit content was possible, while the remaining 51 (55.4 %) were conducted using a telephone. There was no significant difference in provider satisfaction between WebEx vs. telephone visits (-1.47 [-4.99, 2.05], p = 0.82). Provider satisfaction was also not impacted by any technical difficulties as reported by the detailer (-0.04 [-3.30, 3.38], p = 0.98).
The results slightly favor in-person visits and suggest that virtual detailing visits need to incorporate strategies that minimize technical difficulties and prevent participants from defaulting to less favorable technology. Future research opportunities include evaluating the effectiveness of a virtual versus in-person delivery of AD program on outcomes such as providers' opioid prescribing behavior.
在 COVID-19 期间,社会隔离要求对开展传统学术细化提出了挑战,传统学术细化通常涉及面对面的同行教育访问,以改善患者的预后。主要的替代方法是通过基于网络的技术进行虚拟学术细化,但这种方法存在许多挑战。本研究旨在研究在医疗保健提供者中实施虚拟学术细化计划的可行性和可接受性。
学术细化计划侧重于特定样本提供者中适当的阿片类药物处方和慢性非癌性疼痛管理。最初进行面对面访问,然后在 8 周后进行虚拟访问。使用视频会议进行虚拟访问,并使用电话作为备份。可行性是通过虚拟访问是否可以进行来评估的,可接受性是通过提供者满意度来评估的。使用经过验证的提供者对学术细化的满意度量表(PSAD)和细化者对访问效果的评估(DAVE)的 5 点李克特量表进行评估。较高的分数对应于较高的满意度和更高的感知效果。使用非参数和参数统计检验来比较访问之间的仪器汇总分数和组之间的分数。仅对参加了两次访问并完整完成了两次调查的提供者进行了访问之间的配对分析。
在计划的 141 次访问中,完成了 127 次(90%)初始面对面访问,调查的回复率为 96%。在计划的 120 次虚拟随访访问中,进行了 92 次(77%),并收集了 56 次(61%)调查。初始和后续虚拟学术细化访问的满意度很高,但是,在参加了两次访问并完成了两次调查的提供者中(n=50),初始访问的评分略高(平均差异=-2.94[95%置信区间:-4.38,-1.50],p<0.001)。在两次访问中,详细信息器的感知没有明显差异,从量表汇总分数(0.05[-0.56,0.66],p=0.86)和两个与可行性相关的单独报告项目(0.07[-0.29,0.42],p=0.72)和对话(-0.05[-0.28,0.17],p=0.63)可以看出。41 次(44.6%)虚拟访问使用 WebEx 进行,其中可以对访问内容进行视频和屏幕共享,而其余 51 次(55.4%)则使用电话进行。WebEx 与电话访问之间的提供者满意度没有差异(-1.47[-4.99,2.05],p=0.82)。详细信息器报告的任何技术问题(-0.04[-3.30,3.38],p=0.98)也不会影响提供者的满意度。
结果略倾向于面对面访问,并表明虚拟细化访问需要采用策略,以最大程度地减少技术问题并防止参与者转而使用不太有利的技术。未来的研究机会包括评估虚拟与面对面交付 AD 方案对提供者阿片类药物处方行为等结果的有效性。