Eric G. Poon

The novel coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered our economy, society, and healthcare system. While this crisis has presented the U.S. healthcare delivery system with unprecedented challenges, the pandemic has catalyzed rapid adoption of telehealth, or the entire spectrum of activities used to deliver care at a distance. Using examples reported by U.S. healthcare organizations, including ours, we describe the role that telehealth has played in transforming healthcare delivery during the 3 phases of the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic: (1) stay-at-home outpatient care, (2) initial COVID-19 hospital surge, and (3) postpandemic recovery. Within each of these 3 phases, we examine how people, process, and technology work together to support a successful telehealth transformation. Whether healthcare enterprises are ready or not, the new reality is that virtual care has arrived.

BACKGROUND: Serious medication errors are common in hospitals and often occur during order transcription or administration of medication. To help prevent such errors, technology has been developed to verify medications by incorporating bar-code verification technology within an electronic medication-administration system (bar-code eMAR). METHODS: We conducted a before-and-after, quasi-experimental study in an academic medical center that was implementing the bar-code eMAR. We assessed rates of errors in order transcription and medication administration on units before and after implementation of the bar-code eMAR. Errors that involved early or late administration of medications were classified as timing errors and all others as nontiming errors. Two clinicians reviewed the errors to determine their potential to harm patients and classified those that could be harmful as potential adverse drug events. RESULTS: We observed 14,041 medication administrations and reviewed 3082 order transcriptions. Observers noted 776 nontiming errors in medication administration on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR (an 11.5% error rate) versus 495 such errors on units that did use it (a 6.8% error rate)--a 41.4% relative reduction in errors (P<0.001). The rate of potential adverse drug events (other than those associated with timing errors) fell from 3.1% without the use of the bar-code eMAR to 1.6% with its use, representing a 50.8% relative reduction (P<0.001). The rate of timing errors in medication administration fell by 27.3% (P<0.001), but the rate of potential adverse drug events associated with timing errors did not change significantly. Transcription errors occurred at a rate of 6.1% on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR but were completely eliminated on units that did use it. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the bar-code eMAR substantially reduced the rate of errors in order transcription and in medication administration as well as potential adverse drug events, although it did not eliminate such errors. Our data show that the bar-code eMAR is an important intervention to improve medication safety. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00243373.)

BACKGROUND: Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems can help hospitals improve health care quality, but they can also introduce new problems. The extent to which hospitals experience unintended consequences of CPOE, which include more than errors, has not been quantified in prior research. OBJECTIVE: To discover the extent and importance of unintended adverse consequences related to CPOE implementation in U.S. hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Building on a prior qualitative study involving fieldwork at five hospitals, we developed and then administered a telephone survey concerning the extent and importance of CPOE-related unintended adverse consequences to representatives from 176 hospitals in the U.S. that have CPOE. MEASUREMENTS: Self report by key informants of the extent and level of importance to the overall function of the hospital of eight types of unintended adverse consequences experienced by sites with inpatient CPOE. RESULTS We found that hospitals experienced all eight types of unintended adverse consequences, although respondents identified several they considered more important than others. Those related to new work/more work, workflow, system demands, communication, emotions, and dependence on the technology were ranked as most severe, with at least 72% of respondents ranking them as moderately to very important. Hospital representatives are less sure about shifts in the power structure and CPOE as a new source of errors. There is no relation between kinds of unintended consequences and number of years CPOE has been used. Despite the relatively short length of time most hospitals have had CPOE (median five years), it is highly infused, or embedded, within work practice at most of these sites. CONCLUSIONS: The unintended consequences of CPOE are widespread and important to those knowledgeable about CPOE in hospitals. They can be positive, negative, or both, depending on one's perspective, and they continue to exist over the duration of use. Aggressive detection and management of adverse unintended consequences is vital for CPOE success.

Few U.S. hospitals have implemented computerized physician order entry (CPOE) in spite of its effectiveness at preventing serious medication errors. We interviewed senior management at twenty-six hospitals to identify ways to overcome barriers to adopting and implementing CPOE. Within the hospital, strong leadership and high-quality technology were critical. Hospitals that placed a high priority on patient safety could more easily justify the cost of CPOE. Outside the hospital, financial incentives and public pressures encouraged CPOE adoption. Dissemination of data standards would accelerate the maturation of vendors and lower CPOE costs. These findings highlight several policy levers to speed the adoption of this important patient safety technology.

BACKGROUND: Failure to relay information about test results pending when patients are discharged from the hospital may pose an important patient-safety problem. Few data are available on the epidemiology of test results pending at discharge or on physician awareness of these results. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and physician awareness of potentially actionable laboratory and radiologic test results returning after hospital discharge. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two tertiary care academic hospitals. PATIENTS: 2644 consecutive patients discharged from hospitalist services from February to June 2004. MEASUREMENTS: The main outcomes were the prevalence and characteristics of potentially actionable test results returning after hospital discharge, awareness of these results by inpatient and primary care physicians, and satisfaction of inpatient physicians with current systems for follow-up on test results. The authors prospectively collected data on test results pending at the time of discharge and, as results returned after discharge, surveyed hospitalists, junior residents, and primary care physicians about those results that were potentially actionable according to a physician-reviewer. RESULTS: A total of 1095 patients (41%) had 2033 test results return after discharge. Of these results, 191 (9.4% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]) were potentially actionable. Surveys were sent regarding 155 results, and 105 responses were returned. Of the 105 results in the surveys with responses, physicians had been unaware of 65 (61.6% [CI, 51.3% to 70.9%]); of these 65, they agreed with physician-reviewers that 24 (37.1% [CI, 25.7% to 50.2%]) were actionable and 8 (12.6% [CI, 6.4% to 23.3%]) required urgent action. Inpatient physicians were dissatisfied with their systems for following up on test results returning after discharge. LIMITATIONS: The authors were unable to determine whether physicians' lack of awareness of test results returning after discharge was associated with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients are discharged from hospitals with test results still pending, and physicians are often unaware of potentially actionable test results returning after discharge. Further work is needed to design better follow-up systems for test results returning after hospital discharge.