Since its publication in 2008, SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) has contributed to the completeness and transparency of reporting of quality improvement work, providing guidance to authors and reviewers of reports on healthcare improvement work. In the interim, enormous growth has occurred in understanding factors that influence the success, and failure, of healthcare improvement efforts. Progress has been particularly strong in three areas: the understanding of the theoretical basis for improvement work; the impact of contextual factors on outcomes; and the development of methodologies for studying improvement work. Consequently, there is now a need to revise the original publication guidelines. To reflect the breadth of knowledge and experience in the field, we solicited input from a wide variety of authors, editors and improvement professionals during the guideline revision process. This Explanation and Elaboration document (E&E) is a companion to the revised SQUIRE guidelines, SQUIRE 2.0. The product of collaboration by an international and interprofessional group of authors, this document provides examples from the published literature, and an explanation of how each reflects the intent of a specific item in SQUIRE. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist authors in writing clearly, precisely and completely about systematic efforts to improve the quality, safety and value of healthcare services. Authors can explore the SQUIRE statement, this E&E and related documents in detail at http://www.squire-statement.org.

Background Patient satisfaction with in-person medical visits includes patient-clinician engagement. However, communication, empathy, and other relationship-centered care measures in virtual visits have not been adequately investigated. Objective This study aims to comprehensively consider patient experience, including relationship-centered care measures, to assess patient satisfaction during virtual visits. Methods We conducted a large survey study with open-ended questions to comprehensively assess patients’ experiences with virtual visits in a diverse patient population. Adults with a virtual visit between June 21, 2017, and July 12, 2017, were invited to complete a survey of 21 Likert-scale items and textboxes for comments following their visit. Factor analysis of the survey items revealed three factors: experience with technology, patient-clinician engagement, and overall satisfaction. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the associations among the three factors and patient demographics, clinician type, and prior relationship with the clinician. Using qualitative framework analysis, we identified recurrent themes in survey comments, quantitatively coded comments, and computed descriptive statistics of the coded comments. Results A total of 65.7% (426/648) of the patients completed the survey; 64.1% (273/426) of the respondents were women, and the average age was 46 (range 18-86) years. The sample was geographically diverse: 70.2% (299/426) from Ohio, 6.8% (29/426) from Florida, 4.2% (18/426) from Pennsylvania, and 18.7% (80/426) from other states. With regard to insurance coverage, 57.5% (245/426) were undetermined, 23.7% (101/426) had the hospital’s employee health insurance, and 18.7% (80/426) had other private insurance. Types of virtual visits and clinicians varied. Overall, 58.4% (249/426) of patients had an on-demand visit, whereas 41.5% (177/426) had a scheduled visit. A total of 41.8% (178/426) of patients had a virtual visit with a family physician, 20.9% (89/426) with an advanced practice provider, and the rest had a visit with a specialist. Most patients (393/423, 92.9%) agreed that their virtual visit clinician was interested in them as a person, and their virtual visit made it easy to get the care they needed (383/421, 90.9%). A total of 81.9% (344/420) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their virtual visit was as good as an in-person visit by a clinician. Having a prior relationship with their virtual visit clinician was associated with less comfort and ease with virtual technology among patients (odds ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.98). In terms of technology, patients found the interface easy to use (392/423, 92.7%) and felt comfortable using it (401/423, 94.8%). Technical difficulties were associated with lower odds of overall satisfaction (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.76). Conclusions Patient-clinician engagement in virtual visits was comparable with in-person visits. This study supports the value and acceptance of virtual visits. Evaluations of virtual visits should include assessments of technology and patient-clinician engagement, as both are likely to influence patient satisfaction.

Organizations administered questionnaires that were not reliable or valid and did not comprehensively assess barriers and may have selected interventions unlikely to promote guideline use. Research is needed to construct a questionnaire that is practical, adaptable, and robust and leads to the selection of interventions that support guideline use.

Access to paediatric neurology care is complex, resulting in significant wait times and negative patient outcomes. The goal of the American Academy of Pediatrics National Coordinating Center for Epilepsy's project, Access Improvement and Management of Epilepsy with Telehealth (AIM-ET), was to identify access and management challenges in the deployment of telehealth technology. AIM-ET organised four paediatric neurology teams to partner with primary-care providers (PCP) and their multidisciplinary teams. Telehealth visits were conducted for paediatric epilepsy patients. A post-visit survey assessed access and satisfaction with the telehealth visit compared to an in-person visit. Pre/post surveys completed by PCPs and neurologists captured telehealth visit feasibility, functionality and provider satisfaction. A provider focus group assessed facilitators and barriers to telehealth. Sixty-one unique patients completed 75 telehealth visits. Paired t-test analysis demonstrated that telehealth enhanced access to epilepsy care. It reduced self-reported out-of-pocket costs ( p<0.001), missed school hours ( p<0.001) and missed work hours ( p<0.001), with 94% equal parent/caregiver satisfaction. Focus groups indicated developing and maintaining partnerships, institutional infrastructure and education as facilitators and barriers to telehealth. Telehealth shortened travelling distance, reduced expenses and time missed from school and work. Further, it provides significant opportunity in an era when coronavirus disease 2019 limits in-person clinics.

ementoring program, utilizes lectures, case-based learning, and an "all teach-all learn" approach to increase primary care provider (PCP) knowledge/confidence in managing chronic health conditions. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Epilepsy and Comorbidities ECHO incorporated quality improvement (QI) methodology to create meaningful practice change, while increasing PCP knowledge/selfefficacy in epilepsy management using the ECHO model. Methods: Monthly ECHO sessions (May 2018 to December 2018) included lectures, case presentations/discussion, and QI review. Pediatric practices were recruited through the AAP. Practices engaged in ECHO sessions and improvement activities including monthly Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, team huddles, chart reviews, and QI coaching calls to facilitate practice change. They were provided resource toolkits with documentation templates, safety handouts, and medication side effects sheets. QI measures were selected from the American Academy of Neurology Measurement Set for Epilepsy. The AAP Quality Improvement Data Aggregator was used for data entry, run chart development, and tracking outcomes. Participants completed retrospective surveys to assess changes in knowledge and self-efficacy. Results: Seven practices participated across five states. Average session attendance was 14 health professionals (range = 13-17). A total of 479 chart reviews demonstrated improvement in six of seven measures: health care transition (45.3%, P = .005), safety education (41.6%, P = .036), mental/behavioral health screening (32.2% P = .027), tertiary center referral (26.7%, not significant [n.s.]), antiseizure therapy side effects (23%, n.s.), and documenting seizure frequency (7.1%, n.s.); counseling for women of childbearing age decreased by 7.8%. Significance: This project demonstrated that integrating QI into an ECHO model results in practice change and increases PCP knowledge/confidence/self-efficacy in managing epilepsy. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.