Background: Telephone and video telemedicine appointments have been a crucial service delivery method during the COVID-19 pandemic for maintaining access to health care without increasing the risk of exposure. Although studies conducted prior to the pandemic have suggested that telemedicine is an acceptable format for older adults, there is a paucity of data on the practical implementation of telemedicine visits. Due to prior lack of reimbursement for telemedicine visits involving nonrural patients, no studies have compared telephone visits to video visits in geriatric primary care. Objective: This study aimed to determine (1) whether video visits had longer durations, more visit diagnoses, and more advance care planning discussions than telephone visits during the rapid implementation of telemedicine in the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) whether disparities in visit type existed based on patient characteristics. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of patients seen at two geriatric clinics from April 23 to May 22, 2020. Approximately 25% of patients who had telephone and video appointments during this time underwent chart review. We analyzed patient characteristics, visit characteristics, duration of visits, number of visit diagnoses, and the presence of advance care planning discussion in clinical documentation. Results: Of the 190 appointments reviewed, 47.4% (n=90) were video visits. Compared to telephone appointments, videoconferencing was, on average, 7 minutes longer (mean 37.3 minutes, SD 10 minutes; P<.001) and had, on average, 1.2 more visit diagnoses (mean 5.7, SD 3; P=.001). Video and telephone visits had similar rates of advance care planning. Furthermore, hearing, vision, and cognitive impairment did not result in different rates of video or telephone appointments. Non-White patients, patients who needed interpreter services, and patients who received Medicaid were less likely to have video visits than White patients, patients who did not need an interpreter, and patients who did not receive Medicaid, respectively (P=.003, P=.01, P<.001, respectively). Conclusions: Although clinicians spent more time on video visits than telephone visits, more than half of this study’s older patients did not use video visits, especially if they were from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds or Medicaid beneficiaries. This potential health care disparity merits greater attention.

Background: Interprofessional health care team members consider advance care planning (ACP) to be important, yet gaps remain in systematic clinical routines to support ACP. A clearer understanding of the interprofessional team members’ perspectives on ACP clinical routines in diverse settings is needed. Methods: One hundred eighteen health care team members from community-based clinics, long-term care facilities, academic clinics, federally qualified health centers, and hospitals participated in a 35-question, cross-sectional online survey to assess clinical routines, workflow processes, and policies relating to ACP. Results: Respondents were 53% physicians, 18% advanced practice nurses, 11% nurses, and 18% other interprofessional team members including administrators, chaplains, social workers, and others. Regarding clinical routines, respondents reported that several interprofessional team members play a role in facilitating ACP (ie, physician, social worker, nurse, others). Most (62%) settings did not have, or did not know of, policies related to ACP documentation. Only 14% of settings had a patient education program. Two-thirds of the respondents said that addressing ACP is a high priority and 85% felt that nonphysicians could have ACP conversations with appropriate training. The clinical resources needed to improve clinical routines included training for providers and staff, dedicated staff to facilitate ACP, and availability of patient/family educational materials. Conclusion: Although interprofessional health care team members consider ACP a priority and several team members may be involved, clinical settings lack systematic clinical routines to support ACP. Patient educational materials, interprofessional team training, and policies to support ACP clinical workflows that do not rely solely on physicians could improve ACP across diverse clinical settings.

Objective Advance care planning (ACP) is a core quality measure in caring for individuals with Parkinson disease (PD) and there are no best practice standards for how to incorporate ACP into PD care. This study describes patient and care partner perspectives on ACP to inform a patient- and care partner-centered framework for clinical care. Methods This is a qualitative descriptive study of 30 patients with PD and 30 care partners within a multisite, randomized clinical trial of neuropalliative care compared to standard care. Participants were individually interviewed about perspectives on ACP, including prior and current experiences, barriers to ACP, and suggestions for integration into care. Interviews were analyzed using theme analysis to identify key themes. Results Four themes illustrate how patients and care partners perceive ACP as part of clinical care: (1) personal definitions of ACP vary in the context of PD; (2) patient, relationship, and health care system barriers exist to engaging in ACP; (3) care partners play an active role in ACP; (4) a palliative care approach positively influences ACP. Taken together, the themes support clinician initiation of ACP discussions and interdisciplinary approaches to help patients and care partners overcome barriers to ACP. Conclusions ACP in PD may be influenced by patient and care partner perceptions and misperceptions, symptoms of PD (e.g., apathy, cognitive dysfunction, disease severity), and models of clinical care. Optimal engagement of patients with PD and care partners in ACP should proactively address misperceptions of ACP and utilize clinic teams and workflow routines to incorporate ACP into regular care.