Introduction: Tele-emergency can address several challenges facing emergency departments in rural areas. The purpose of this paper is to (a) examine the rates of avoided transfers in rural emergency departments that adopted tele-emergency applications; and (b) estimate the costs and benefits of using tele-emergency to avoid transfers. Methods: Analysis is based on 9048 tele-emergency encounters generated by the Avera eEmergency programme (Sioux Falls, South Dakota) in 85 rural hospitals across seven states between October 2009–February 2014. For each non-transfer patient, physicians indicated whether the transfer was avoided because of tele-emergency activation. The cost-benefit analysis is conducted from the hospital, patient and societal perspectives, and includes technology costs, local hospital revenues and patient-associated savings. All monetary values are expressed in US$. Sensitivity analysis is conducted by examining the worst and best case scenarios of costs, revenues and savings. Results: In these analyses, 1175 avoided transfers were attributed to tele-emergency. From a rural hospital perspective, tele-emergency costs around US$1739 to avoid a single transfer. However, tele-emergency saves around US$5563 in avoided transportation and indirect patient costs. Combining these, from a societal perspective, tele-emergency has the potential to result in a net savings of US$3823 per avoided transfer while accounting for tele-emergency technology costs, hospital revenues, and patient-associated savings. Conclusion: This study highlights various stakeholder perspectives on the financial impact of tele-emergency in avoiding patient transfers in rural emergency departments. Telemedicine has the potential to reduce the number of transfers of emergency department patients and generate some revenue for rural hospitals despite associated technology costs, while incurring substantial patient savings.

Background: As telemedicine plays an increasing role in health care delivery, providers are expected to receive adequate training to effectively communicate with patients during telemedicine encounters. Teach-back is an approach that verifies patients’ understanding of the health care information provided by health care professionals. Including patients in the design and development of teach-back training content for providers can result in more relevant training content. However, only a limited number of studies embrace patient engagement in this capacity, and none for remote care settings. Objective: We aimed to design and evaluate the feasibility of patient-centered, telehealth-focused teach-back training for family medicine residents to promote the use of teach-back during remote visits. Methods: We codeveloped the POTENTIAL (Platform to Enhance Teach-Back Methods in Virtual Care Visits) curriculum for medical residents to promote teach-back during remote visits. A patient participated in the development of the workshop’s videos and in a patient-provider panel about teach-back. We conducted a pilot, 2-arm cluster, nonrandomized controlled trial. Family medicine residents at the intervention site (n=12) received didactic and simulation-based training in addition to weekly cues-to-action. Assessment included pre- and postsurveys, observations of residents, and interviews with patients and providers. To assess differences between pre- and postintervention scores among the intervention group, chi-square and 1-tailed t tests were used. A total of 4 difference-in-difference models were constructed to evaluate prepost differences between intervention and control groups for each of the following outcomes: familiarity with teach-back, importance of teach-back, confidence in teach-back ability, and ease of use of teach-back. Results: Medical residents highly rated their experience of the teach-back training sessions (mean 8.6/10). Most residents (9/12, 75%) used plain language during training simulations, and over half asked the role-playing patient to use their own words to explain what they were told during the encounter. Postintervention, there was an increase in residents’ confidence in their ability to use teach-back (mean 7.33 vs 7.83; P=.04), but there was no statistically significant difference in familiarity with, perception of importance, or ease of use of teach-back. None of the difference-in-difference models were statistically significant. The main barrier to practicing teach-back was time constraints. Conclusions: This study highlights ways to effectively integrate best-practice training in telehealth teach-back skills into a medical residency program. At the same time, this pilot study points to important opportunities for improvement for similar interventions in future larger-scale implementation efforts, as well as ways to mitigate providers’ concerns or barriers to incorporating teach-back in their practice. Teach-back can impact remote practice by increasing providers’ ability to actively engage and empower patients by using the features (whiteboards, chat rooms, and mini-views) of their remote platform.

Introduction: No one can argue on the importance of health in one's life. However, the value of health in the context of other priorities for individuals is not always as clear. Further, patients' experience with the healthcare system is rarely contrasted with the service providers' expectations. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare patients' and providers' own definitions of health and their perceptions of the healthcare delivery experience from the lens of residents and providers in West Baltimore, Maryland.Methods: This was a qualitative study with semi‐structured focus groups (15 sessions) and individual in‐depth interviews (21 interviews) with 94 participants. Two independent coders thematically analysed the transcripts.Results: Patients identified five areas where health systems can help them stay healthy or become healthier: affordability and costs of care; accessibility; clinician/patient communication; addressing social determinants; and stigma and trust. Providers acknowledged that the healthcare experience is not always perfect. While the medical team focuses on conversations that enhance medical care, patients are expecting providers to touch on subjects beyond medical care.Conclusions: Patients and providers need to consider that although they have a common value towards health, there is still a gap in what users expect and what providers can offer. To further align those expectations, there is a need for increasing involvement of patient in care administration and improving dialogue between the parties about these differences.Patient or Public Contribution: A Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB)—comprised of a patient, two community leaders, a physician and two healthcare administrators—was instrumental in codeveloping the study material (e.g., interview guides), engaging patients in the research process, identifying participants and codeveloping dissemination material. Two SAB members—Gail Graham, a patient consultant/professor, and Marcia Cort, a physician—are coauthors.

Successful endorsement of quality indicators hinges on the readiness and acceptability of care providers for those measures. This paper aims to assess the readiness of care providers in the primary health-care sector in Lebanon for the implementation of quality and patient safety indicators. A cross-sectional survey methodology was utilized to gather information from 943 clinical care providers working at 123 primary health-care centres in Lebanon. The questionnaire included two sections: the first assessed four readiness dimensions (appropriateness, management support, efficacy, and personal valence) of clinical providers to use quality and safety indicators using the Readiness for Organization Change (ROC) scale, and the second section assessed the safety attitude at the primary care centre utilizing the Agency of Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) Safety Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ)-Ambulatory version. Although two thirds (66 %) of respondents indicated readiness for implementation of quality and patient safety indicators in their centres, there appear to be differences by professional group. Physicians displayed the lowest scores on all readiness dimensions except for personal valence which was the lowest among nurses (60 %). In contrast, allied health professionals displayed the highest scores across all readiness dimensions. Generally, respondents reflected a positive safety attitude climate in the centres. Yet, there remain a few areas of concern related to punitive culture (only 12.8 % agree that staff should not be punished for reported errors/incidents), continuity of care (41.1 % believe in the negative consequences of lack in continuity of care process), and resources (48.1 % believe that the medical equipment they have are adequate). Providers with the highest SAQ score had 2.7, 1.7, 7 and 2.4 times the odds to report a higher readiness on the appropriateness, efficacy, management and personal valence ROC subscales, respectively (P value <0.01). Nurses displayed relatively lower odds of readiness across all other ROC subscales as compared to all other providers. Health-care providers at the primary health care (PHC) centres in Lebanon are ready to engage in employing quality and patient safety indicators. This is a key finding given the active efforts by the MoPH to strengthen the quality culture in the PHC sector through various strategies.