To describe the first 30 days of rapid adolescent telehealth scale-up in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic at a single academic medical center and assess for disparities in visit completion rates by patient characteristics. Methods: Visit outcome and patient demographic data were obtained via electronic health record (EHR) reports. Telehealth visit completion rates were compared by patient characteristics using the chi-square test and t-test. We used zip code data to generate latitude-and longitude-based maps of the range and density of service delivery. Patient cases highlighting challenges and opportunities for adolescent telehealth were summarized. Results: Between March 16 and April 15, 2020, 392 telehealth visits were scheduled in 331 unique patients, with an 82% appointment completion rate. Video visits were conducted for eating disorders (39%), contraception/menstrual disorders (22%), gender-affirming care (17%), general adolescent medicine (15%), HIV treatment (6%), and substance abuse (1%). The majority of telehealth patients were female Caucasian minors with private insurance. There were no significant differences in telehealth visit completion rates by age, sex, gender, or insurance. Patients coded as non-white (African-American, Asian, or other) in the EHR had lower visit completion rates than white patients (p ¼ .003). Telehealth patients were distributed across five states, with the highest concentration in the zip codes nearest to the clinic. Conclusions: Rapid scale-up of telehealth for Adolescent Medicine was achieved at this large academic medical center. Future implementation research is needed to assure telehealth reaches adolescents without widening health disparities.

Background Data regarding the acceptability, feasibility, and quality of telehealth among adolescents and young adults (AYA) and their parents and caregivers (caregivers) are lacking. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the noninferiority of telehealth versus in-person visits by comparing acceptability with respect to efficiency, effectiveness, equity, patient-centeredness, and confidentiality. Methods Cross-sectional web-based surveys were sent to caregivers and AYA following video visits within an Adolescent Medicine subspecialty clinic in May-July 2020. Proportions of AYA and caregivers who rated telehealth as noninferior were compared using chi-squared tests. Feasibility was assessed via items measuring technical difficulties. Deductive thematic analysis using the Institute of Medicine dimensions of health care quality was used to code open-ended question responses. Results Survey response rates were 20.5% (55/268) for AYA and 21.8% (123/563) for caregivers. The majority of the respondents were White cisgender females. Most AYA and caregivers rated telehealth as noninferior to in-person visits with respect to confidentiality, communication, medication management, and mental health care. A higher proportion of AYA compared to caregivers found telehealth inferior with respect to confidentiality (11/51, 22% vs 3/118, 2.5%, P<.001). One-quarter (14/55) of the AYA patients and 31.7% (39/123) of the caregivers reported technical difficulties. The dominant themes in the qualitative data included advantages of telehealth for efficiency and equity of health care delivery. However, respondents’ concerns included reduced safety and effectiveness of care, particularly for patients with eating disorders, owing to lack of hands-on examinations, collection of vital signs, and laboratory testing. Conclusions Telehealth was highly acceptable among AYA and caregivers. Future optimization should include improving privacy, ameliorating technical difficulties, and standardizing at-home methods of obtaining patient data to assure patient safety.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Vision-related quality of life can be a valuable outcome for some interventions in ophthalmology. In the primary Descemet Endothelial Thickness Comparison Trial (DETECT), Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) had superior postoperative visual acuity compared with ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK). It is of interest to determine whether this trend extends to quality of life.OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of UT-DSAEK and DMEK on vision-related quality of life. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA prespecified secondary analysis of a 2-surgeon patient-and outcome-masked randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Casey Eye Institute in Portland, Oregon, and Byers Eye Institute in Palo Alto, California. The study was conducted between January 20, 2015, and April 26, 2017. DETECT enrolled 38 individuals and included 50 eyes with isolated endothelial dysfunction; for this analysis, the second eye from a single participant was excluded along with any questionnaires in the first eye after second eye surgery for evaluation of 38 eyes at baseline and 3 months and 26 eyes at 12 months. Mean (SD) baseline visual acuity was 0.35 (0.31) logMAR in the DMEK arm and 0.28 (0.22) logMAR in the UT-DSAEK arm. Each arm consisted of 19 participants: 18 individuals with Fuchs dystrophy and 1 participant with pseudophakic bullous keratopathy.INTERVENTIONS Study eyes were randomized to receive either UT-DSAEK or DMEK. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Responses to the National Eye Institute (NEI) VisualFunction Questionnaire-39 (VFQ-39) administered at baseline and 3 and 12 months postoperatively were analyzed using the NEI-defined traditional subscales and composite score on a 100-point scale and with a Rasch-refined analysis.RESULTS There were more women in both arms of the study (UT-DSAEK, 12 [63%]; DMEK, 11 [58%]); mean (SD) age was 68 (11) years in the UT-DSAEK arm and 68 (4) years in the DMEK arm. Overall, study participants experienced a 9.1-point improvement in NEI VFQ-39 composite score at 3 months compared with baseline (N = 38; 95% CI, 4.9-13.3; P < .001), and an 11.6-point improvement at 12 months compared with baseline (n = 26; 95% CI, 6.8-16.4; P < .001). Eyes randomized to DMEK had 0.9 points more improvement in NEI VFQ-39 composite score at 3 months compared with UT-DSAEK after controlling for baseline NEI VFQ-39 (95% CI, −6.2 to 8.0; P = .80).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Improvement in vision-related quality of life was not shown to be greater with DMEK compared with UT-DSAEK.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02373137