Thompson Joshua A, Hersch Derek, Kasozi Ramla N, Miner Michael H, Adam Patricia
Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Sciences, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Telemed J E Health. 2024 Mar;30(3):715-721. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2023.0150. Epub 2023 Sep 14.
Introduction:Remote patient monitoring (RPM) programs are increasingly common. There is a risk that inequitable use of RPM will perpetuate existing health care disparities. We conducted a study to determine if enrollment in a COVID-19 RPM program was offered differentially across demographic groups.
Methods:From March through September 2020, patients with COVID-19 were evaluated within a large academic health system with a standardized care pathway that directed providers to refer the patients for RPM. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the effects of social vulnerability and urbanicity of residence on the odds of referral. We estimated vulnerability using the CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) and used logistic regression to determine odds ratios (ORs) for referral based on SVI and urbanicity.
Results:Of 16,739 patients who had a qualifying health care encounter, 2,946 (17.6%) were referred for RPM. Patients in census tracts with higher social vulnerability were less likely to be referred than those in tracts with lower vulnerability (OR 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.84). Patients living in Micropolitan/Large Rural Cities or Small Towns/Small Rural Towns were more likely to be referred than those in Metropolitan/Urban areas. In the full regression model, including both SVI and urbanicity, urbanicity was the strongest predictor of referral, and patients living in Metropolitan/Urban areas were the most likely to be referred.
Conclusions:We found disparities in who is offered access to remote monitoring despite the use of standardized care pathways. Health systems need to evaluate how they implement RPM programs and care pathways to ensure equitable care delivery.
远程患者监测(RPM)项目越来越普遍。存在这样一种风险,即RPM的不公平使用会使现有的医疗保健差距长期存在。我们开展了一项研究,以确定COVID-19 RPM项目的注册在不同人口群体中是否存在差异。
2020年3月至9月,在一个大型学术医疗系统内对COVID-19患者进行评估,采用标准化护理路径指导医护人员将患者转诊至RPM项目。我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,以评估社会脆弱性和居住城市程度对转诊几率的影响。我们使用美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)的社会脆弱性指数(SVI)来估计脆弱性,并使用逻辑回归来确定基于SVI和城市程度的转诊比值比(OR)。
在16739名有资格接受医疗服务的患者中,2946名(17.6%)被转诊至RPM项目。社会脆弱性较高的普查区的患者比脆弱性较低的普查区的患者被转诊的可能性更小(OR 0.73,95%置信区间0.63 - 0.84)。生活在微型都市/大型乡村城市或小镇/小型乡村城镇的患者比生活在大都市/城市地区的患者更有可能被转诊。在包含SVI和城市程度的完整回归模型中,城市程度是转诊的最强预测因素,生活在大都市/城市地区的患者被转诊的可能性最大。
我们发现,尽管使用了标准化护理路径,但在谁能获得远程监测方面存在差异。医疗系统需要评估他们如何实施RPM项目和护理路径,以确保公平的医疗服务提供。