ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 0755

Changes in Rheumatology Providers’ Perceptions of Telehealth Appropriateness from 2021 to 2022

David Leverenz1, Mary Solomon2, Ricardo Henao2, Isaac Smith3, Catherine Howe4, Nicoleta Economou-Zavlanos5, Bhargav Adagarla6, Theresa Coles7, AJ Overton8, Jayanth Doss9 and Megan Clowse10, 1Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 2Duke University, Department of Biostatistics, Durham, NC, 3Duke University, Department of Medicine-Rheumatology and Immunology, Durham, NC, 4New York University, New York, NY, 5Duke AI Health, Durham, NC, 6Duke University Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, 7Duke University, Department of Population Health Sciences, Durham, NC, 8Consultant, Durham, NC, 9Duke University, Durham, NC, 10Duke University, Chapel Hill, NC

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2023

Keywords: Access to care, Health Care, Health Services Research, quality of care

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Sunday, November 12, 2023

Title: Abstracts: Measures & Measurement of Healthcare Quality

Session Type: Abstract Session

Session Time: 2:00PM-3:30PM

Background/Purpose: Telehealth in rheumatology rapidly expanded in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, however it remains unknown how provider perceptions of telehealth changed as the pandemic evolved and providers gained additional experience with telehealth. In this project, we describe rheumatology providers’ perceptions of telehealth appropriateness from 2021 – 2022, along with the clinical and demographic factors that align with telehealth appropriateness.

Methods: Providers at a single academic rheumatology practice in the U.S. documented their perception of telehealth appropriateness by recording the Encounter Appropriateness Score for You (EASY) in their progress notes immediately following each in-person or telehealth encounter. The EASY score asks providers, “Which of the following encounter types would have been most appropriate for TODAY’S visit? (Irrespective of the pandemic).” Response options include: (1) Either in-person or telehealth acceptable; (2) In-person preferred; (3) Telehealth preferred. For this analysis, EASY scores 1 and 3 were consolidated into a single variable, “telehealth acceptable.” We analyzed changes in EASY scores and encounter modality from 1/1/2021 – 10/30/2022. In addition, we analyzed the distribution of EASY scores according to patient demographic and clinical variables. This analysis was limited to return encounters.

Results: Over the study period, 27 providers documented EASY scores for 21,670 return encounters. Of these, 6,551 (30.2%) were rated as telehealth acceptable and 15,119 (69.8%) in-person preferred. The proportion of EASY scores rated as telehealth acceptable declined over time, from approximately 47% in January 2021 to 25% from August 2021 – October 2022 (Figure 1). The proportion of visits that occurred by telehealth also declined from 33% in January 2021 to approximately 15% in 2022. The proportion of EASY scores matching the actual encounter type (indicating the appropriate type of visit actually occurred) increased for all encounters from 69% in January 2021 to approximately 80% throughout 2022 (Figure 2). Among the 27 providers, there was substantial variability in the proportion of visits each provider rated as telehealth acceptable (median 35%, IQR 12-43%, full range 3-72%). Patient characteristics, including demographics, diagnoses, and patient-reported symptom severity (RAPID3), were related to telehealth appropriateness (Figure 3), with the most telehealth acceptance among patients with RAPID3 scores indicating remission (45%) and the least acceptance with high disease activity (22%).

Conclusion: Providers became progressively less likely to consider a visit appropriate for telehealth over the first half of 2021, but then stabilized estimating approximately 25% of all return visits telehealth-appropriate. Frequency of telehealth visits followed a similar pattern, though generally telehealth visits accounted for fewer than 25% of visits in 2022, suggesting that telehealth is under-utilized. For example, providers report telehealth as appropriate in over 35% of encounters when the patient reports low symptom severity, suggesting that this sub-population of patients could be a good target for increased telehealth use.

Supporting image 1

Figure 1. Provider ratings of telehealth appropriateness according to EASY scores (dotted lines) and actual visit modalities (bars) for all return encounters with a documented EASY score, January 2021 through October 2022.

Supporting image 2

Figure 2. Percent of encounters where the provider EASY score and encounter modality matched per month for telehealth encounters (blue), in-person encounters (orange), and all encounters (black).

Supporting image 3

Figure 3. Proportion of return encounters where EASY score indicated telehealth acceptable (EASY = 1 or 3), according to sociodemographics, diagnoses, and RAPID3 scores from January 2021 – October 2022. Diagnoses are grouped using ICD_10 codes. Inflammatory arthritis includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Abbreviations: PMR = polymyalgia rheumatica; SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus; UCTD = undifferentiated connective tissue disease.


Disclosures: D. Leverenz: Pfizer, 5, Rheumatology Research Foundation, 5, Sanofi, 2; M. Solomon: None; R. Henao: None; I. Smith: None; C. Howe: None; N. Economou-Zavlanos: None; B. Adagarla: None; T. Coles: Merck/MSD, 5, Pfizer, 5, Regenxbio, 2; A. Overton: None; J. Doss: None; M. Clowse: Exagen, 5, GlaxoSmithKlein(GSK), 2, 5, Immunovant, 5, UCB, 2, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Leverenz D, Solomon M, Henao R, Smith I, Howe C, Economou-Zavlanos N, Adagarla B, Coles T, Overton A, Doss J, Clowse M. Changes in Rheumatology Providers’ Perceptions of Telehealth Appropriateness from 2021 to 2022 [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023; 75 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/changes-in-rheumatology-providers-perceptions-of-telehealth-appropriateness-from-2021-to-2022/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2023

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/changes-in-rheumatology-providers-perceptions-of-telehealth-appropriateness-from-2021-to-2022/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology