TY - JOUR
T1 - Provider Perspectives and Clinical Outcomes with Inpatient Telenephrology
AU - Androga, Lagu A.
AU - Zoghby, Ziad
AU - Ramar, Priya
AU - Amundson, Rachel H.
AU - D’Uscio, Margaret
AU - Philpot, Lindsey M.
AU - Thorsteinsdottir, Bjoerg
AU - Kattah, Andrea G.
AU - Albright, Robert C.
N1 - Funding Information:
A.G. Kattah reports consultancy agreements with ICU Medical. B. Thorsteinsdottir reports employment with Mayo Clinic; reports owning stock in AMD, Apple, Aurora Blackberry, Cannabis, CRISPS Therapy, General Electric, General Motors, Genetic Tech, Global X Lithium, IBM, KD Kyndryl hldg, Li Auto Inc, Microsoft, Nokia, Novo Nordisk, ORF Genetics, a biotechnological company in Iceland not producing anything of relevance to the field of nephrology to date, and XPEV XPENG Inc; and reports having other interests or relationships with the Coalition for Supportive Care of Kidney Patients. L.A. Androga, L.M. Philpot, P. Ramar, R.C. Albright Jr., and R.H. Amundson report being employed by the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. M. D’uscio reports serving on the medical advisory board as volunteer member for The National Kidney Foundation (Twin Cities). Z. Zoghby reports employment with Mayo Clinic and research funding from Kadmon Corporation. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose.
Funding Information:
We are grateful for the support from the Division of Nephrology & Hypertension at Mayo Clinic, the Department of Medicine, and the Division of Community Internal Medicine at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Additionally, the authors wish to acknowledge the efforts provided by the teammates of the robust and unique environment of the Mayo Clinic Health System.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 by the American Society of Nephrology.
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - Background and objectives Despite the dramatic increase in the provision of virtual nephrology care, only anecdotal reports of outcomes without comparators to usual care exist in the literature. This study aimed to provide objective determination of clinical noninferiority of hybrid (telenephrology plus face-to-face) versus standard (face-to-face) inpatient nephrology care. Design, setting, participants, & measurements This retrospective study compares objective outcomes in patients who received inpatient hybrid care versus standard nephrology care at two Mayo Clinic Health System community hospitals. Outcomes were then additionally compared with those patients receiving care at another Mayo Clinic Health System site where only standard care is available. Hospitalized adults who had nephrology consults from March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 were considered. Regression was used to assess 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, readmissions, odds of being prescribed dialysis, and hospital transfers. Sensitivity analysis was performed using patients who had ≥50% of their care encounters via telenephrology. Structured surveys were used to understand the perspectives of non-nephrology hospital providers and telenephrologists. Results In total, 850 patients were included. Measured outcomes that included the number of hospital transfers (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 3.82) and 30-day readmissions (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.06), among others, did not differ significantly between controls and patients in the general cohort. Telenephrologists (n=11) preferred video consults (82%) to phone for communication. More than half (64%) of telenephrologists spent less time on telenephrology compared with standard care. Non-nephrology hospital providers (n=21) were very satisfied (48%) and satisfied (29%) with telenephrology response time and felt telenephrology was as safe as standard care (67%), while providing them enough information to make patient care decisions (76%). Conclusions Outcomes for in-hospital nephrology consults were not significantly different comparing hybrid care versus standard care. Non-nephrology hospital providers and telenephrologists had favorable opinions of telenephrology and most perceived it is as safe and effective as standard care.
AB - Background and objectives Despite the dramatic increase in the provision of virtual nephrology care, only anecdotal reports of outcomes without comparators to usual care exist in the literature. This study aimed to provide objective determination of clinical noninferiority of hybrid (telenephrology plus face-to-face) versus standard (face-to-face) inpatient nephrology care. Design, setting, participants, & measurements This retrospective study compares objective outcomes in patients who received inpatient hybrid care versus standard nephrology care at two Mayo Clinic Health System community hospitals. Outcomes were then additionally compared with those patients receiving care at another Mayo Clinic Health System site where only standard care is available. Hospitalized adults who had nephrology consults from March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 were considered. Regression was used to assess 30-day mortality, length of hospitalization, readmissions, odds of being prescribed dialysis, and hospital transfers. Sensitivity analysis was performed using patients who had ≥50% of their care encounters via telenephrology. Structured surveys were used to understand the perspectives of non-nephrology hospital providers and telenephrologists. Results In total, 850 patients were included. Measured outcomes that included the number of hospital transfers (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 3.82) and 30-day readmissions (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.06), among others, did not differ significantly between controls and patients in the general cohort. Telenephrologists (n=11) preferred video consults (82%) to phone for communication. More than half (64%) of telenephrologists spent less time on telenephrology compared with standard care. Non-nephrology hospital providers (n=21) were very satisfied (48%) and satisfied (29%) with telenephrology response time and felt telenephrology was as safe as standard care (67%), while providing them enough information to make patient care decisions (76%). Conclusions Outcomes for in-hospital nephrology consults were not significantly different comparing hybrid care versus standard care. Non-nephrology hospital providers and telenephrologists had favorable opinions of telenephrology and most perceived it is as safe and effective as standard care.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130003939&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85130003939&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2215/CJN.13441021
DO - 10.2215/CJN.13441021
M3 - Article
C2 - 35322794
AN - SCOPUS:85130003939
SN - 1555-9041
VL - 17
SP - 655
EP - 662
JO - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
JF - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
IS - 5
ER -