实施混合产前护理模式的操作效果:回顾性分析[j]

Leena Ghrayeb, T.J. Bryan, Amy E. M. Cohn, A. Peahl, Yuanbo Zhang
{"title":"实施混合产前护理模式的操作效果:回顾性分析[j]","authors":"Leena Ghrayeb, T.J. Bryan, Amy E. M. Cohn, A. Peahl, Yuanbo Zhang","doi":"10.1097/01.aog.0000930940.91989.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine is promising for improving prenatal care access but may generate unscheduled prenatal care utilization including phone calls and portal messages. We describe differences in care utilization between pregnant people receiving in-person only versus hybrid (in-person and telemedicine) models of prenatal care. METHODS: In this IRB-exempt electronic health record-based study, we identified patients who received prenatal care and gave birth at our academic institution between March 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022. We classified patients into four groups based on medical and social risk factors: A) completely low risk; B) high social risk only; C) high medical risk only; and D) completely high risk. We compared visit number, portal messages, and phone calls between patients who received hybrid versus in-person only care. We report medians for all measures. RESULTS: Of the 4,992 included patients, 48% received hybrid care. Patients in all groups had one additional visit if they received hybrid versus in-person care (A: 9 versus 8; B: 8 versus 7; C: 9 versus 8; D: 9 versus 8). Patients receiving hybrid care used more portal messages than patients in the same group who received in-person care: A: 8 versus 6; B: 9 versus 5; C: 10 versus 9; D: 12 versus 8. There was no significant difference in phone call utilization between the in-person and hybrid patient groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who received hybrid prenatal care tended to utilize prenatal care including both planned and unplanned services more frequently than exclusively in-person patients.","PeriodicalId":19405,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Operational Effects of Implementing Hybrid Prenatal Care Models: A Retrospective Analysis [ID: 1374984]\",\"authors\":\"Leena Ghrayeb, T.J. Bryan, Amy E. M. Cohn, A. Peahl, Yuanbo Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/01.aog.0000930940.91989.49\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine is promising for improving prenatal care access but may generate unscheduled prenatal care utilization including phone calls and portal messages. We describe differences in care utilization between pregnant people receiving in-person only versus hybrid (in-person and telemedicine) models of prenatal care. METHODS: In this IRB-exempt electronic health record-based study, we identified patients who received prenatal care and gave birth at our academic institution between March 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022. We classified patients into four groups based on medical and social risk factors: A) completely low risk; B) high social risk only; C) high medical risk only; and D) completely high risk. We compared visit number, portal messages, and phone calls between patients who received hybrid versus in-person only care. We report medians for all measures. RESULTS: Of the 4,992 included patients, 48% received hybrid care. Patients in all groups had one additional visit if they received hybrid versus in-person care (A: 9 versus 8; B: 8 versus 7; C: 9 versus 8; D: 9 versus 8). Patients receiving hybrid care used more portal messages than patients in the same group who received in-person care: A: 8 versus 6; B: 9 versus 5; C: 10 versus 9; D: 12 versus 8. There was no significant difference in phone call utilization between the in-person and hybrid patient groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who received hybrid prenatal care tended to utilize prenatal care including both planned and unplanned services more frequently than exclusively in-person patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19405,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Obstetrics & Gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000930940.91989.49\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000930940.91989.49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

远程医疗有望改善产前护理的可及性,但可能会产生计划外的产前护理利用,包括电话和门户信息。我们描述了仅接受面对面和混合(面对面和远程医疗)产前护理模式的孕妇之间的护理利用差异。方法:在这项基于irb豁免电子健康记录的研究中,我们确定了在2021年3月1日至2022年3月31日期间在我们的学术机构接受产前护理并分娩的患者。我们根据医疗和社会风险因素将患者分为四组:A)完全低风险;B)只有高社会风险;C)只有高医疗风险;D)完全高风险。我们比较了接受混合护理和面对面护理的患者之间的就诊次数、门户信息和电话。我们报告所有测量的中位数。结果:在4992例纳入的患者中,48%的患者接受了混合护理。如果接受混合护理和面对面护理,所有组的患者都有一次额外的就诊(A: 9对8;B: 8对7;C: 9对8;D: 9对8)。接受混合护理的患者比同一组接受面对面护理的患者使用更多的门户信息:A: 8对6;B: 9对5;C: 10对9;D: 12对8。面对面治疗组和混合治疗组的电话使用率无显著差异。结论:接受混合产前护理的患者比单独接受产前护理的患者更倾向于使用计划内和计划外的产前护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Operational Effects of Implementing Hybrid Prenatal Care Models: A Retrospective Analysis [ID: 1374984]
INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine is promising for improving prenatal care access but may generate unscheduled prenatal care utilization including phone calls and portal messages. We describe differences in care utilization between pregnant people receiving in-person only versus hybrid (in-person and telemedicine) models of prenatal care. METHODS: In this IRB-exempt electronic health record-based study, we identified patients who received prenatal care and gave birth at our academic institution between March 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022. We classified patients into four groups based on medical and social risk factors: A) completely low risk; B) high social risk only; C) high medical risk only; and D) completely high risk. We compared visit number, portal messages, and phone calls between patients who received hybrid versus in-person only care. We report medians for all measures. RESULTS: Of the 4,992 included patients, 48% received hybrid care. Patients in all groups had one additional visit if they received hybrid versus in-person care (A: 9 versus 8; B: 8 versus 7; C: 9 versus 8; D: 9 versus 8). Patients receiving hybrid care used more portal messages than patients in the same group who received in-person care: A: 8 versus 6; B: 9 versus 5; C: 10 versus 9; D: 12 versus 8. There was no significant difference in phone call utilization between the in-person and hybrid patient groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who received hybrid prenatal care tended to utilize prenatal care including both planned and unplanned services more frequently than exclusively in-person patients.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信