Telehealth Made EASY: Understanding Provider Perceptions of Telehealth Appropriateness in Outpatient Rheumatology Encounters.
Abstract
<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to evaluate a novel scoring system,
the Encounter Appropriateness Score for You (EASY), to assess provider perceptions
of telehealth appropriateness in rheumatology encounters.<h4>Methods</h4>The EASY
scoring system prompts providers to rate their own encounters as follows: in-person
or telehealth acceptable, EASY = 1; in-person preferred, EASY = 2; or telehealth preferred,
EASY = 3. Assessment of the EASY scoring system occurred at a single academic institution
from January 1, 2021, to August 31, 2021. Data were collected in three rounds: 1)
initial survey (31 providers) assessing EASY responsiveness to five hypothetical scenarios,
2) follow-up survey (34 providers) exploring EASY responsiveness to 11 scenario modifications,
and 3) assessment of EASYs documented in clinic care.<h4>Results</h4>The initial and
follow-up surveys demonstrated responsiveness of EASYs to different clinical and nonclinical
factors. For instance, less than 20% of providers accepted telehealth when starting
a biologic for active rheumatoid arthritis, although more than 35% accepted telehealth
in the same scenario if the patient lived far away or was well known to the provider.
Regarding EASY documentation, 27 providers provided EASYs for 12,381 encounters. According
to these scores, telehealth was acceptable or preferred for 29.7% of all encounters,
including 21.4% of in-person encounters. Conversely, 24.4% of telehealth encounters
were scored as in-person preferred.<h4>Conclusion</h4>EASY is simple, understandable,
and responsive to changes in the clinical scenario. We have successfully accumulated
12,381 EASYs that can be studied in future work to better understand telehealth utility
and optimize telehealth triage.
Type
Journal articlePermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/25618Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1002/acr2.11470Publication Info
Smith, Isaac D; Coles, Theresa M; Howe, Catherine; Overton, Robert; Economou-Zavlanos,
Nicoleta; Solomon, Mary J; ... Leverenz, David L (2022). Telehealth Made EASY: Understanding Provider Perceptions of Telehealth Appropriateness
in Outpatient Rheumatology Encounters. ACR open rheumatology. 10.1002/acr2.11470. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/25618.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
Megan Elizabeth Bowles Clowse
Associate Professor of Medicine
Dr. Megan Clowse is an Associate Professor of Medicine in the Division of Rheumatology
and Immunology. Her clinical research focuses on the management of rheumatic diseases
in pregnancy. She has cared for over 600 pregnancies in women with rheumatic disease,
collecting information on these pregnancies initially in the Duke Autoimmunity in
Pregnancy Registry and Repository, and now the MADRA (Maternal Autoimmune Disease
Research Alliance) registry and repository. She served on the
Theresa Marie Coles
Assistant Professor in Population Health Sciences
Theresa Coles, Ph.D., is a health outcomes methodologist with a focus on measuring
and evaluating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and other clinical outcomes assessments
(COAs), integrating PRO measures in clinical care, and improving interpretation of
patient-centered outcome scores for use in healthcare delivery and clinical research
settings to inform decision making.
My research program is comprised of 3 pillars:
Enhance the assessment of physical funct
David Leverenz
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Isaac David Smith
Medical Instructor in the Department of Medicine
Alphabetical list of authors with Scholars@Duke profiles.

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info