Nouri Sarah, Pantilat Steven Z, Ritchie Christine S, Lyles Courtney R, Shi Ying, O'Riordan David, Boscardin John, Sudore Rebecca L
Division of Palliative Medicine (S.N., S.Z.P., D.O.R.), Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Division of Palliative Medicine (S.N., S.Z.P., D.O.R.), Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2025 Apr;69(4):385-392.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.12.016. Epub 2025 Jan 3.
Virtual visits have increased in outpatient, clinic-based palliative care (OPC). The association between virtual visits and OPC outcomes is largely unknown.
(1) Examine the association between visit type (virtual vs. in-person) and screening (yes/no) for psychosocial, spiritual, and goals of care needs. (2) Assess effect modification by language.
We used data from the Palliative Care Quality Network (01/2017-03/2021). We conducted multivariable analyses adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, self-reported race-ethnicity, and language, clustered by site, and included an interaction term to assess effect modification by language.
Among 2684 patients, 29% had a virtual visit; 50% were ≥65 years old, 24% non-English preferred languages; 18% identified as Hispanic, 9% Black, 17% Asian, 6% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. There were no differences by visit type in screening for psychosocial (aOR 0.87 vs. in-person visits, 95% CI 0.60-1.25), spiritual (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57-1.15), or goals of care needs (aOR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85-1.31). Patients with non-English preferred languages (vs. English-speaking) had significantly lower odds of screening regardless of visit type. Patients identifying as Black (vs. White) also had significantly lower odds of screening.
There were no differences by visit type in screening for psychosocial, spiritual, and goals of care needs. Patients with preferred languages other than English were significantly less likely to be screened than English speakers, though there was no further difference by visit type. Patients identifying as Black were also significantly less likely to be screened. Addressing these disparities in core OPC elements is essential in providing equitable, high-quality OPC.
门诊姑息治疗(OPC)中虚拟问诊的情况有所增加。虚拟问诊与OPC结果之间的关联在很大程度上尚不清楚。
(1)研究问诊类型(虚拟问诊与面对面问诊)与心理社会、精神及护理需求目标筛查(是/否)之间的关联。(2)评估语言对结果的影响。
我们使用了姑息治疗质量网络(2017年1月 - 2021年3月)的数据。我们进行了多变量分析,对年龄、性别、诊断、自我报告的种族 - 民族和语言进行了调整,并按地点进行聚类,还纳入了一个交互项来评估语言对结果的影响。
在2684名患者中,29%进行了虚拟问诊;50%年龄≥65岁,24%偏好非英语语言;18%为西班牙裔,9%为黑人,17%为亚洲人,6%为夏威夷原住民/太平洋岛民。在心理社会筛查方面(与面对面问诊相比,调整后比值比[aOR]为0.87,95%置信区间[CI]为0.60 - 1.25)、精神筛查方面(aOR为0.81, 95% CI为0.57 - 1.15)或护理需求目标筛查方面(aOR为1.05, 95% CI为0.85 - 1.31),不同问诊类型之间没有差异。无论问诊类型如何,偏好非英语语言的患者(与说英语的患者相比)接受筛查的几率显著更低。自我认定为黑人的患者(与白人相比)接受筛查的几率也显著更低。
在心理社会、精神及护理需求目标筛查方面,不同问诊类型之间没有差异。偏好非英语语言的患者接受筛查的可能性明显低于说英语的患者,不过不同问诊类型之间没有进一步差异。自我认定为黑人的患者接受筛查的可能性也明显更低。解决OPC核心要素中的这些差异对于提供公平、高质量的OPC至关重要。