Variation in Telehealth Use for Patients With Incident Atrial Fibrillation Across the Veterans Health Administration:...

Telehealth is a potential tool to alleviate geographic clinician shortages, but there are limited data regarding current telehealth use for common cardiology conditions, including atrial fibrillation (AF).

We aimed to evaluate variation in telehealth use in primary care and cardiology clinics for patients with incident AF in the Veterans Health Administration.

We included patients diagnosed with AF in the outpatient setting between January 2022 and September 2023. We assessed the association between any video visit and any telehealth use (including phone) for primary care or cardiology visits within 90 days of an AF diagnosis, adjusting for selected patient- and facility-level characteristics using Bayesian logistic regression with facility-level random intercepts. We evaluated facility variation in video visit and telehealth use with the median odds ratio (MOR).

Our cohort included 36,929 patients with 80,596 visits across 125 facilities. Of the 63,835 primary care visits, 2088 (3.27%) were delivered via video and 13,403 (21%) via telehealth; of the 16,761 cardiology visits, 323 (1.93%) were delivered via video and 3288 (19.62%) via telehealth. On average, the mean age of the patients was 73.6 (SD 10.9) years; 2.91% (1075/36,929) were female; 77.71% (28,698/36,929) were White. In adjusted analyses, older age was associated with lower use of video visits for both primary and cardiology care and lower use of any telehealth for cardiology care (eg, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.61, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.42-0.85 for the use of video cardiology care for patients aged above 77 years). Living more than 65 km from the care site was associated with increased use of both video and any telehealth for primary and cardiology care (eg, AOR 1.91, 95% CrI 1.21-3.00 for video cardiology care); however, living in a rural location was associated with lower odds of using video or any telehealth for primary care (video: AOR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.64-0.84; telehealth: AOR 0.89, 95% CrI 0.83-0.96). There was marked variability across facilities in the use of video care (range 0%-17.4% of visits for cardiology care; 0%-12.5% for primary care) and telehealth (range 0%-82.6% for cardiology care; 3.8%-61.6% for primary care). The facility-level adjusted MOR for video care use was 1.97 (95% CrI 1.77-2.24) for primary care and 4.95 (95% CrI 3.39-7.98) for cardiology care. Similarly, the adjusted MOR for any telehealth use was 1.79 for primary care (95% CrI 1.65-1.96) and 2.61 for cardiology care (95% CrI 2.25-3.13).

Following an incident AF diagnosis, telehealth may increase access to primary and cardiology care for veterans living at a distance, but its use remains lower for older patients and those in rural areas. There was substantial variation in telehealth use across facilities, which was not explained by differences in patient and facility characteristics. Standardizing telehealth use across Veterans Health Administration facilities may improve access to AF care.