Improved Virologic Suppression With HIV Subspecialty Care in a Large Prison System Using Telemedicine: An Observational Study With Historical Controls

Young, J D; Patel, Mahesh C.; Badowski, Melissa E; Mackesy‐Amiti, Mary Ellen; Vaughn, Pyrai; Shicker, Louis; Puisis, Michael; Ouellet, Lawrence J.

doi:10.1093/cid/ciu222

Cited by 65 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The most common exclusion criterion was lack of care delivery model studied or described (3,164). Thirteen studies were fully evaluated (Figure 1) (Aiken et al, 1993; Chu, Umanski, Blank, Grossberg, & Selwyn, 2010; Ding et al, 2008; Gardner et al, 2002; Irvine et al, 2015; Keitz, Box, Homan, Bartlett, & Oddone, 2001; Kitahata et al, 1996; Kitahata et al, 2003; Laine et al, 1998; Landon et al, 2003; Landon et al, 2005; Lê, Winter, Boyd, Ackerson, & Hurley, 1998; Young et al, 2014). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these, 7 examined only specialty-based care at the clinician (Keitz et al, 2001; Kitahata et al, 1996; Kitahata et al, 2003; Landon et al, 2003; Landon et al, 2005) and/or practice levels (Gardner et al, 2002; Keitz et al, 2001; Laine et al, 1998; Landon et al, 2005), while 2 focused on specialty-based care and either advanced practitioner care (Ding et al, 2008) or shared care (Chu et al, 2010). One study each evaluated only advanced practitioner care (Aiken et al, 1993), team-based care (Irvine et al, 2015), and shared care (Young et al, 2014), while another assessed both team-based and shared care (Lê et al, 1998). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All except one study (Keitz et al, 2001) were non-experimental. Only 4 of 13 studies were published in the last decade (Chu et al, 2010; Ding et al, 2008; Irvine et al, 2015; Young et al, 2014). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies included practices located in the Northeast region (Pennsylvania, New York) (Aiken et al, 1993; Chu et al, 2010; Gardner et al, 2002; Irvine et al, 2015; Laine et al, 1998), three in the West (California, Washington) (Kitahata et al, 1996; Kitahata et al, 2003; Lê et al, 1998), one in the Midwest (Illinois) (Young et al, 2014) and two in the South (Maryland, North Carolina) (Gardner et al, 2002; Keitz et al, 2001) (Figure 2). Three were nationally representative (Ding et al, 2008; Landon et al, 2003; Landon et al, 2005), although only regional-level outcomes were reported.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of nine studies explicitly reporting specific study site location, six were in urban metropolitan areas and three in metropolitan areas serving a wider catchment area. One study, which included incarcerated individuals, reported on subjects from correctional facilities across the state of Illinois, although specific study sites or catchment areas were not reported (Young et al, 2014). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Clinical outcomes of HIV care delivery models in the US: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With over 1 million people living with HIV, the US faces national challenges in HIV care delivery due to an inadequate HIV specialist workforce and the increasing role of non-communicable chronic diseases in driving morbidity and mortality in HIV-infected patients. Alternative HIV care delivery models, which include substantial roles for advanced practitioners and/or coordination between specialty and primary care settings in managing HIV-infected patients, may address these needs. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on patient-level HIV-specific and primary care health outcomes for HIV-infected adults receiving outpatient care across HIV care delivery models. We identified randomized trials and observational studies from bibliographic and other databases through March 2016. Eligible studies met pre-specified eligibility criteria including on care delivery models and patient-level health outcomes. We considered all available evidence, including non-experimental studies, and evaluated studies for risk of bias. We identified 3605 studies, of which 13 met eligibility criteria. Of the 13 eligible studies, the majority evaluated specialty-based care (9 studies). Across all studies and care delivery models, eligible studies primarily reported mortality and antiretroviral use, with specialty-based care associated with mortality reductions at the clinician and practice levels and with increased antiretroviral initiation or use at the clinician level but not the practice level. Limited and heterogeneous outcomes were reported for other patient-level HIV-specific outcomes (e.g., viral suppression) as well as for primary care health outcomes across all care delivery models. No studies addressed chronic care outcomes related to aging. Limited evidence was available across geographic settings and key populations. As redesign of care delivery in the US continues to evolve, better understanding of patient-level HIV-related and primary care health outcomes, especially across different staffing models and among different patient populations and geographic locations, is urgently needed to improve HIV disease management.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Clinical outcomes of HIV care delivery models in the US: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Telemedicine in prisons: A Crime in Mind perspective

Gunn

Taylor

Forrester

et al. 2020

Criminal Behav Ment Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluating the primary care clinical pharmacist visit transition to telehealth during the COVID‐19 pandemic by comparing medication related problems from telehealth visits and in‐person visits

McNamara

Zhao

Lee

2021

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic forced healthcare systems to rethink healthcare delivery, and forced primary care pharmacists in our healthcare system to switch all visits that were previously face to face (FTF) to telehealth. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to examine the association between medication related problems (MRPs) resolved in telehealth vs FTF primary care clinical pharmacist visits. The telehealth visits took place in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic, which forced health care systems to rethink care delivery. Data was collected for patient visits for 2 weeks in January before the pandemic and 2 weeks in June during the pandemic. Results There was significantly more average MRPs resolved per patient encounter in FTF visits compared with telehealth visits, particularly in patient encounters that were previously seen by the pharmacist, who were under 65 years old, identified as Black/African American, had chronic kidney disease but not on dialysis, diabetes with end organ damage, and had uncontrolled blood pressure and uncontrolled A1c. Conclusion These results provide a start to establish criteria for which patients should be seen by a clinical pharmacist in person vs over the phone.

show abstract

Improved Virologic Suppression With HIV Subspecialty Care in a Large Prison System Using Telemedicine: An Observational Study With Historical Controls

Cited by 65 publications

References 26 publications

Clinical outcomes of HIV care delivery models in the US: a systematic review

Clinical outcomes of HIV care delivery models in the US: a systematic review

Telemedicine in prisons: A Crime in Mind perspective

Evaluating the primary care clinical pharmacist visit transition to telehealth during the COVID‐19 pandemic by comparing medication related problems from telehealth visits and in‐person visits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About