No abstract

Background The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) funded the Evidence-Based Tele-Emergency Network Grant Program (EB TNGP) to serve the dual purpose of providing telehealth services in rural emergency departments (teleED) and systematically collecting data to inform the telehealth evidence base. This provided a unique opportunity to examine trends across multiple teleED networks and examine heterogeneity in processes and outcomes. Method and findings Six health systems received funding from HRSA under the EB TNGP to implement teleED services and they did so to 65 hospitals (91% rural) in 11 states. Three of the grantees provided teleED services to a general patient population while the remaining three grantees provided teleED services to specialized patient populations (i.e., stroke, behavioral health, critically ill children). Over a 26-month period (November 1, 2015 –December 31, 2017), each grantee submitted patient-level data for all their teleED encounters on a uniform set of measures to the data coordinating center. The six grantees reported a total of 4,324 teleED visits and 99.86% were technically successful. The teleED patients were predominantly adult, White, not Latinx, and covered by Medicare or private insurance. Across grantees, 7% of teleED patients needed resuscitation services, 58% were rated as emergent, and 30% were rated as urgent. Across grantees, 44.2% of teleED patients were transferred to another inpatient facility, 26.0% had a routine discharge, and 24.5% were admitted to the local inpatient facility. For the three grantees who served a general patient population, the most frequent presenting complaints for which teleED was activated were chest pain (25.7%), injury or trauma (17.1%), stroke symptoms (9.9%), mental/behavioral health (9.8%), and cardiac arrest (9.5%). The teleED consultation began before the local clinician exam in 37.8% of patients for the grantees who served a general patient population, but in only 1.9% of patients for the grantees who provided specialized services. Conclusions Grantees used teleED services for a representative rural population with urgent or emergent symptoms largely resulting in transfer to a distant hospital or inpatient admission locally. TeleED was often available as the first point of contact before a local provider examination. This finding points to the important role of teleED in improving access for rural ED patients.

BACKGROUND Receiving treatment for behavioral health disorders remains problematic due to profound provider shortages. Telebehavioral health services are effective for providing quality care, but research literature on these services in schools is limited. METHODS Data were collected during Fall 2019 and Spring 2020 semesters on all students receiving telebehavioral health services from 15 school‐based telehealth programs across the U.S. RESULTS From Fall 2019 to Spring 2020, 62 schools providing services during both periods increased the number of students served from 396 to 745, increased the average number of encounters per student from 2.4 to 4.1, increased the percentage of encounters delivered by clinical social workers, mental health counselors, and clinical psychologists (all p < .001), and increased the use of individual counseling, family counseling, and group counseling (all p < .001). Schools that initiated the service in Spring 2020 (n = 25) averaged 6.5 encounters for the 301 students receiving services, delivered mostly by clinical social workers or professional counselors, using individual counseling. CONCLUSION Overall, data indicate programs significantly increased both behavioral services provided to their ongoing schools and increased the number of schools served. Undoubtedly telebehavioral health care delivery provided a swift and necessary response to the challenges posed by the growing pandemic threat.

No abstract

BACKGROUND In rural areas with health professional workforce shortages, telehealth offers an opportunity to address service gaps and meet the health needs of students. Few studies have examined telehealth implementation in rural schools. This study explores facilitators and barriers to the implementation of telehealth programs in rural schools and identifies strategies for successful implementation to inform future school‐based telehealth initiatives. METHODS We conducted semi‐structured qualitative interviews with 50 key informants involved in the implementation of telehealth programs funded through the School‐Based Telehealth Network Grant Program. Researchers completed a thematic analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS The most commonly cited barriers were technology, reimbursement for services, and facilitating acceptance of the telehealth among school staff, clinicians, parents, and students. Key informants identified strategies for facilitating program implementation, including technology training and support, marketing efforts, and integration into existing school processes. CONCLUSIONS School‐based telehealth can augment clinical capacity in areas with clinician shortages. Entities interested in such an approach to care must engage with their school community to ensure successful implementation. For rural, school‐based telehealth to gain greater adoption and be sustained, these services must be reimbursable by Medicaid and private insurers.