BACKGROUND

Relaxation of telehealth regulation enforcement during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic opened the door to massive expansion. Here we describe inpatient telehealth usage across a pediatric academic hospital during the first year of the pandemic.

METHODS

We created hospital bed-specific inpatient telehealth accounts and monitored their use over a 1 year period using data from our video conferencing vendor. We matched data with our enterprise data warehouse based on session date and time to identify patients who participated in telehealth. We performed secondary analysis of all video conferences to identify additional multidisciplinary team and family meetings that did not leverage the bed-specific telehealth accounts.

RESULTS

We hosted 6931 inpatient telehealth sessions associated with 1648 unique patients. Hospitalized patients participating in telehealth sessions were older and had markedly longer length of stay compared with those who did not use telehealth (median age 12 vs 8 years, P < .001; median length of stay 9.03 vs 2.03 days, P < .001). There were 2006 charges for telehealth sessions, half of which were from psychiatry providers. Secondary analysis revealed an additional 1132 sessions used for interdisciplinary team or family meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians used inpatient telehealth to support care of hospitalized pediatric patients during the coronavirus disease pandemic, particularly for mental health care and family meetings. These findings suggest ongoing opportunities for inpatient telehealth systems beyond the pandemic.

In response to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, federal and state governments loosened enforcement of privacy and billing penalties for health care providers in connection with the good faith use of telehealth.1,2  The result was a massive increase in telehealth services provided.3  We previously described rapid implementation and evaluation of an inpatient telehealth (ITH) system during the COVID-19 pandemic.4,5  Others have likewise described telehealth implementations,610  virtual care units and/or virtual rounds,1114  and specialty-specific telemedicine consultation for inpatients, including addiction medicine,15  dermatology,16,17  genetics,18  and others.8,11,1925  There have also been reports of telehealth use for nonphysician services such as diabetes education,26  virtual pharmacy rounds,27  and physical therapy.28 

Here we describe usage of inpatient telehealth across a pediatric academic hospital during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, including patient demographics, session characteristics, and specialty service adoption.

As previously described, an interdisciplinary team developed, implemented, and supported an ITH program at an academic freestanding pediatric hospital as part of a quality improvement effort.4  Using a vendor video conferencing system, we created 414 ITH accounts for specific hospital beds to be used by clinicians and other hospital staff to communicate with patients. Throughout the project we made iterative improvements based on the results of brief surveys and rounds with patients, providers, and medical interpreters.5  One such improvement was the addition of 17 accounts for our inpatient psychiatry unit ∼9 months into the initiative because of a COVID-19 outbreak on the unit. This project was deemed quality improvement by our Department of Pediatrics Performance Excellence Group and exempt from institutional review.

We used our electronic health record data to identify all hospitalized patients from March 23, 2020 through March 22, 2021, including demographic and professional charge data. We matched patients from our query with ITH sessions during that year-long period based on video conference reporting, including hospital bed and the date and time of the session. Because we designed our ITH system for ease of use, we do not require a user to login and thus have limited data on participants. In an effort to better understand the use cases for ITH, we identified charged ITH sessions based on a telehealth modifier code added by physicians.

As part of a secondary analysis, we sought to identify team and family meetings created ad hoc by users, instead of using our established ITH system. Because of vendor data retention policies, we were only able to obtain these hospital-wide video conference account data for 30 weeks out of the year-long study period. These data include any video conferences hosted at our institution during the time period, including for nonclinical use. We excluded sessions that used our dedicated ITH accounts. We then filtered meeting topics that included the word “team” or “family.” We reviewed the remaining meetings and excluded those with meeting topics that were either clearly nonclinical (eg, weekly admin team check-in) or hosted by users who did not have a clinical role (eg, information technology staff).

We analyzed our data using descriptive statistics with median and interquartile range (IQR) for non-normally distributed data. We used Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare sample medians. We used χ2 analysis with posthoc residuals and Bonferroni correction to compare categorical data.

There were 14 090 unique patients hospitalized during the project period, including 1648 (11.7%) that participated in an ITH session based on our patient matching. Patients who participated in an ITH session were older and had longer length of stay compared with those who did not (median age 12 vs 8 years, P < .001; median length of stay 9.03 vs 2.03 days, P < .001). Table 1 shows the demographics for hospitalized patients based on whether they participated in an ITH session.

TABLE 1

Characteristics of Patients Participating in Inpatient Telehealth (ITH) Sessions Compared With Patients Who Did Not Participate in ITH Sessions

ITH Patients, n = 1648 (%)Non-ITH Patients, n = 12 442 (%)
Age   
 0–11 mo 271 (16.4) 2156 (17.3) 
 12 mo–11 y 468 (28.4) 5258 (42.3) 
 12–17 y 729 (44.2) 3325 (26.7) 
 18+ y 180 (10.9) 1703 (13.7) 
Legal sexa   
 Female 922 (55.9) 6088 (48.9) 
Racea   
 Asian 58 (3.5) 439 (3.5) 
 Black or African Americanb 201 (12.2) 1072 (8.6) 
 Other 480 (29.1) 3858 (31.0) 
 White 909 (55.2) 7073 (56.8) 
Ethnicityc   
 Hispanic or Latino 248 (15.0) 1654 (13.3) 
Preferred languaged   
 Arabic 26 (1.6) 117 (0.9) 
 English 1440 (87.4) 10 991 (88.3) 
 Other 44 (2.6) 346 (2.8) 
 Portuguese 19 (1.2) 155 (1.2) 
 Spanish 105 (6.4) 711 (5.7) 
 Unable to collect 14 (0.8) 122 (1.0) 
ITH Patients, n = 1648 (%)Non-ITH Patients, n = 12 442 (%)
Age   
 0–11 mo 271 (16.4) 2156 (17.3) 
 12 mo–11 y 468 (28.4) 5258 (42.3) 
 12–17 y 729 (44.2) 3325 (26.7) 
 18+ y 180 (10.9) 1703 (13.7) 
Legal sexa   
 Female 922 (55.9) 6088 (48.9) 
Racea   
 Asian 58 (3.5) 439 (3.5) 
 Black or African Americanb 201 (12.2) 1072 (8.6) 
 Other 480 (29.1) 3858 (31.0) 
 White 909 (55.2) 7073 (56.8) 
Ethnicityc   
 Hispanic or Latino 248 (15.0) 1654 (13.3) 
Preferred languaged   
 Arabic 26 (1.6) 117 (0.9) 
 English 1440 (87.4) 10 991 (88.3) 
 Other 44 (2.6) 346 (2.8) 
 Portuguese 19 (1.2) 155 (1.2) 
 Spanish 105 (6.4) 711 (5.7) 
 Unable to collect 14 (0.8) 122 (1.0) 
a

Statistically significant difference between groups based on χ2 analysis (P < .001).

b

Statistically significant difference based on posthoc residual analysis with Bonferroni correction (P = .006).

c

Statistically significant difference between groups based on χ2 analysis (P = .05).

d

Statistically significant difference between groups based on χ2 analysis (P = .02).

Over the course of the year, patients participated in a total of 6931 dedicated ITH sessions during 1879 unique hospitalizations (Table 2, Supplemental Fig 1). The median number of ITH sessions for a given inpatient hospitalization was 2 (IQR 1–4). The median session duration was 25 minutes (IQR 12–49), with a median of 2 users per session (IQR 2–3). Most sessions occurred while the patient was on a pediatric medical service.

TABLE 2

Inpatient Telehealth Session Characteristics

Number of Sessions, N = 6931
Sessions per inpatient hospitalization  
 1 session 812 (43.2%) 
 2–5 sessions 745 (39.6%) 
 >5 sessions 322 (17.1%) 
Duration  
 ≤5 min 595 (9%) 
 6–30 min 3432 (50%) 
 31–60 min 1695 (24%) 
 >60 min 1209 (17%) 
# User participants  
 2 users 4246 (61%) 
 3–5 users 2339 (34%) 
 6–10 users 296 (4%) 
 >10 users 50 (1%) 
Bedded specialty  
 Pediatrics 4818 (70%) 
 Intensive care or step-down 1054 (15%) 
 Surgery 556 (8%) 
 Psychiatry 503 (7%) 
Number of Sessions, N = 6931
Sessions per inpatient hospitalization  
 1 session 812 (43.2%) 
 2–5 sessions 745 (39.6%) 
 >5 sessions 322 (17.1%) 
Duration  
 ≤5 min 595 (9%) 
 6–30 min 3432 (50%) 
 31–60 min 1695 (24%) 
 >60 min 1209 (17%) 
# User participants  
 2 users 4246 (61%) 
 3–5 users 2339 (34%) 
 6–10 users 296 (4%) 
 >10 users 50 (1%) 
Bedded specialty  
 Pediatrics 4818 (70%) 
 Intensive care or step-down 1054 (15%) 
 Surgery 556 (8%) 
 Psychiatry 503 (7%) 

During the observed period there were 2006 charges submitted using the telehealth modifier code for 836 patients. One hundred fifty-eight unique providers charged for ITH services across 24 different clinical services. The majority of charges were for patients hospitalized on inpatient wards (n = 1831, 91.3%), including 847 sessions for psychiatry consultation or other mental health care. A small fraction were for patients on the inpatient psychiatry unit, added later in the study (n = 161, 8%). Overall, 50% of charges for ITH were from Psychiatry providers (n = 1002), with the next most from Genetics or Metabolism (n = 369, 18.4%) and Endocrine (n = 138, 6.9%). Billing codes used for ITH sessions were significantly different than those used for in person patient care (Χ2 = 2567, P < .001) (Table 3). Notably, 4928 ITH sessions did not have a corresponding professional charge. Likewise, 513 charges did not match an ITH session.

TABLE 3

Professional Charges

Billing CodeaITH n = 2006 (%)Non-ITH n = 135 504 (%)
Inpatient or observation subsequent visit (CPT 99224-99226 and 99231-99233)b 1208 (60.2) 100 669 (74.3) 
Initial inpatient consult (CPT 99251-99255)b 466 (23.2) 12 580 (9.3) 
Psychotherapy or biopsychosocial assessment (CPT 90791, 90832 and 90834)b 137 (6.8) 461 (0.3) 
Initial hospital or observation care (CPT 99221-99223 and 99218-99220)b 95 (4.7) 10 382 (7.7) 
Prolonged services or medical team conference (CPT 99356-99359 and 99366-99367)b 40 (2) 792 (0.6) 
Inpatient or observation discharge (CPT 99217, 99238 and 99239)b 23 (1.1) 9102 (6.7) 
Obs same day admit/dc (99234-99236) 1 (<1) 216 (0.2) 
Otherb 36 (1.8) 1302 (1) 
Billing CodeaITH n = 2006 (%)Non-ITH n = 135 504 (%)
Inpatient or observation subsequent visit (CPT 99224-99226 and 99231-99233)b 1208 (60.2) 100 669 (74.3) 
Initial inpatient consult (CPT 99251-99255)b 466 (23.2) 12 580 (9.3) 
Psychotherapy or biopsychosocial assessment (CPT 90791, 90832 and 90834)b 137 (6.8) 461 (0.3) 
Initial hospital or observation care (CPT 99221-99223 and 99218-99220)b 95 (4.7) 10 382 (7.7) 
Prolonged services or medical team conference (CPT 99356-99359 and 99366-99367)b 40 (2) 792 (0.6) 
Inpatient or observation discharge (CPT 99217, 99238 and 99239)b 23 (1.1) 9102 (6.7) 
Obs same day admit/dc (99234-99236) 1 (<1) 216 (0.2) 
Otherb 36 (1.8) 1302 (1) 
a

Statistically significant difference between groups based on χ2 analysis (P < .001).

b

Statistically significant difference based on posthoc residual analysis with Bonferroni correction (P = .003).

Secondary analysis of video conferencing data from the available 30 weeks out of the year-long project period identified 579 787 total meetings, including 11 937 where the meeting topic contained the word “Team” or “Family.” After exclusion of nonclinical meeting topics and hosts there were 1132 meetings (37 meetings per week) with a median duration of 49 minutes (IQR 36–62). The median number of users was 5 (IQR 3.5–8).

Over 10% of hospitalized patients participated in an ITH session and over half of those used the system more than once. Participating patients were older and had considerably longer lengths of stay compared with those who did not participate in an ITH session. These findings may reflect the increase in number and length of stay for patients admitted to the hospital awaiting inpatient psychiatric care29  amid the concurrent mental health crisis.3032  This is also supported by the relative increased use of ITH for female patients, in keeping with Ibeziako et al’s findings on psychiatric boarders.29  Though smaller in magnitude, the increased use of ITH for minority patients and those with a preferred language other than English is reassuring that these populations were not selectively disadvantaged in the use of telehealth. Indeed, our prior evaluation of satisfaction found patients who prefer Spanish to have high satisfaction with ITH.5  Most ITH sessions were for patients on a pediatric medical service; however, the system was also used for patients on pediatric surgical, critical care, and psychiatry teams. Notably, nearly 80% of our ITH sessions did not have a corresponding charge, which suggests the encounter was either unbillable, the provider chose not to charge for the encounter, or the provider did not use the telehealth modifier. This suggests important opportunities for the use of ITH for nonphysician services (eg, social work, case management, child life therapy) or as an adjunct to in person care by the medical team.

Half of the charges for ITH sessions were from psychiatry providers and all the top billing specialties were from disciplines where much of a patient evaluation depends on the patient’s history and a careful visual exam. The majority of charges from psychiatry providers was for consultation and follow-up on patients admitted to medical, surgical, or critical care teams. In addition, although our inpatient psychiatry unit was added during the last quarter of the study and represented only 4% of available ITH accounts, they accounted for nearly 10% of charged visits. This underscores the potential for use of telehealth for mental health care, including in group and community settings, especially in the face of an infectious outbreak. Notably, we could not match 25% of charges from ITH sessions to one of our ITH accounts. This likely indicates use of ad hoc video conference sessions, such as those identified in our secondary analysis, as well as meetings using other video conferencing software or telephone calls. Although likely done in good faith, these sessions emphasize the need for robust training and straightforward workflows to facilitate use of approved ITH systems with appropriate security and business agreements in place.

During the 30 weeks of the year-long study period for which we had ad hoc meeting data, we identified over 1000 additional video conference sessions created by users for the purposes of team and family meetings. These meetings lasted longer than most ITH sessions and had more than twice as many participating users as would be expected when discussing complex diagnostic, treatment, and care coordination decisions. Possible reasons for creating ad hoc meetings instead of using our ITH system include primarily usability issues and inadequate education and training.

Our findings suggest important ongoing use cases for ITH. High utilization by psychiatrists suggests ongoing opportunities to support behavioral health care with a limited workforce. This population may explain the disproportionate use of ITH sessions for inpatient consults, psychotherapy, and biopsychosocial assessment. Legislative efforts to support mental health care, including the expanded access to telehealth,33  are critical to managing this crisis. Although the department of health and human services has developed a telehealth toolkit to support providers,34  state-by-state variation in Medicaid reimbursement means pediatric providers must work closely with their compliance officers to understand local policy. The use of ITH for multidisciplinary team and family meetings provides the opportunity to achieve greater engagement from key stakeholders. Although these meetings occurred before the pandemic, telehealth provides the opportunity to bring together multiple specialists as well as family members, primary care providers, and other caregivers (eg, school nurses) in complex medical decision-making from disparate locations. The importance of this use case has been previously reported35  and is further supported by our secondary analysis, which showed nearly 40 additional ad hoc sessions per week for team and family meetings. Finally, the preponderance of unbilled ITH sessions suggests ongoing opportunities to support patient care remotely with medical interpreters, social workers, case managers, and others, which may help address growing labor shortages in health care.

Our evaluation of ITH usage has limitations, most notably the fact that most sessions were not charged for and thus even though we were able to identify the patient in many cases, we have limited data about who conducted the ITH session and why. Charges for ITH sessions may also be under-represented because of the need for physicians to add the telehealth modifier manually during charge capture. Moreover, because all employees can create ad hoc meetings, the data from our ITH system accounts likely underrepresent the full use of telehealth for inpatients at our hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our attempt to identify team and family meetings hosted ad hoc was further limited by loss of data for this secondary analysis. However, additional data on ad hoc team and family meetings would only underscore the importance of supporting ITH systems for multidisciplinary care in the future. Though psychiatry consultations were well represented based on our billing data, inpatient psychiatry visits may be under-represented since we did not create ITH accounts for our psychiatry unit until late in the project. Still, given the nature of behavioral health care on this unit it is unlikely ITH would have been used extensively in the absence of the infectious outbreak use case.

Clinicians used telehealth to support care of hospitalized pediatric patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest ongoing applications for ITH beyond the pandemic, especially for mental health and multidisciplinary care.

The authors would like to acknowledge Mark Hourigan, Manager for Network Services at Boston Children’s Hospital, for his work configuring the videoconferencing software.

Dr Hron conceptualized and designed the study; led data collection, analysis, and interpretation; and drafted the initial manuscript; Dr Payvandi participated in acquisition of data and data analysis; Dr Parsons helped conceptualize and design the study and participated in acquisition of data and data analysis; and Dr Bourgeois supervised the conceptualization and design of the study; supervised data collection, analysis, and interpretation; critically reviewed and revised the manuscript; and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

FUNDING: No external funding.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

1
US Department of Health and Human Services
.
Notification of enforcement discretion for telehealth
.
2
Office of the Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
.
Order expanding access to telehealth services and to protect health care providers
.
3
Samson
L
,
Tarazi
W
,
Turrini
G
,
Sheingold
S
.
Medicare beneficiaries’ use of telehealth in 2020: trends by beneficiary characteristics and location
.
4
Hron
JD
,
Parsons
CR
,
Williams
LA
,
Harper
MB
,
Bourgeois
FC
.
Rapid implementation of an inpatient telehealth program during the COVID-19 pandemic
.
Appl Clin Inform
.
2020
;
11
(
3
):
452
459
5
Payvandi
L
,
Parsons
C
,
Bourgeois
FC
,
Hron
JD
.
Inpatient telehealth experience of patients with limited English proficiency: cross-sectional survey and semistructured interview study
.
JMIR Form Res
.
2022
;
6
(
4
):
e34354
6
Vilendrer
S
,
Patel
B
,
Chadwick
W
, et al
.
Rapid deployment of inpatient telemedicine in response to COVID-19 across three health systems
.
J Am Med Inform Assoc
.
2020
;
27
(
7
):
1102
1109
7
Reeves
JJ
,
Hollandsworth
HM
,
Torriani
FJ
, et al
.
Rapid response to COVID-19: health informatics support for outbreak management in an academic health system
.
J Am Med Inf Assoc
.
2020
;
27
(
6
):
853
859
8
Calton
B
,
Abedini
N
,
Fratkin
M
.
Telemedicine in the time of coronavirus
.
J Pain Symptom Manage
.
2020
;
60
(
1
):
e12
e14
9
Ong
SY
,
Stump
L
,
Zawalich
M
, et al
.
Inpatient telehealth tools to enhance communication and decrease personal protective equipment consumption during disaster situations: a case study during the COVID-19 pandemic
.
Appl Clin Inform
.
2020
;
11
(
5
):
733
741
10
Wosik
J
,
Fudim
M
,
Cameron
B
, et al
.
Telehealth transformation: COVID-19 and the rise of virtual care
.
J Am Med Inform Assoc
.
2020
;
27
(
6
):
957
962
11
Glasgow
S
,
Saha
P
,
Moore
H
,
James
B
,
Newsholme
W
,
Zayed
H
.
Perception and acceptability of virtual ward round reviews of vascular inpatients to preserve resources and reduce infection risk in the COVID-19 era
.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
.
2021
;
61
(
3
):
527
528
12
Becker
NV
,
Mendu
ML
,
Martin
KL
,
Hirner
JP
,
Bakshi
S
,
Carlile
N
.
Provider experience and satisfaction with a novel ‘virtual team rounding’ program during the COVID-19 pandemic
.
Int J Qual Health Care
.
2021
;
33
(
3
):
mzab111
13
Pilosof
NP
,
Barrett
M
,
Oborn
E
,
Barkai
G
,
Pessach
IM
,
Zimlichman
E
.
Inpatient telemedicine and new models of care during COVID-19: hospital design strategies to enhance patient and staff safety
.
Int J Environ Res Public Health
.
2021
;
18
(
16
):
8391
14
Sukumar
S
,
Zakaria
A
,
Lai
CJ
,
Sakumoto
M
,
Khanna
R
,
Choi
N
.
Designing and implementing a novel virtual rounds curriculum for medical students’ internal medicine clerkship during the COVID-19 pandemic
.
MedEdPORTAL
.
2021
;
17
:
11106
15
Harris
MTH
,
Peterkin
A
,
Bach
P
, et al
.
Adapting inpatient addiction medicine consult services during the COVID-19 pandemic
.
Addict Sci Clin Pract
.
2021
;
16
(
1
):
13
16
Khosravi
H
,
Nekooie
MB
,
Moorhead
A
,
English
JC
III
.
Inpatient teledermatology improves diagnostic accuracy and management of erythroderma in hospitalized patients
.
Clin Exp Dermatol
.
2021
;
46
(
8
):
1555
1557
17
Wolner
ZJ
,
Nguyen
H
,
Kong
HE
,
Perricone
AJ
,
Stoff
BK
,
Cheeley
JT
.
Virtual clinicopathologic correlation rounds for inpatient consult skin biopsies during the COVID-19 pandemic: a quality improvement study
.
J Cutan Pathol
.
2022
;
49
(
1
):
107
109
18
Boothe
E
,
West
B
,
Hendon
LG
,
Kaplan
JD
,
Kirmse
B
.
Asynchronous telemedicine for clinical genetics consultations in the NICU: a single center’s solution
.
J Perinatol
.
2021
;
42
(
2
):
262
268
19
Sobhani
F
,
Desai
S
,
Madill
E
, et al
.
Remote longitudinal inpatient acute stroke care via telestroke
.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis
.
2021
;
30
(
6
):
105749
20
Fang
JL
,
Chuo
J
.
Using telehealth to support pediatricians in newborn care
.
Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care
.
2021
;
51
(
1
):
100952
21
Kalra
G
,
Commiskey
PW
,
Schempf
T
, et al
.
Initial results and patient survey of virtual inpatient ophthalmology consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic
.
Semin Ophthalmol
.
2021
;
36
(
7
):
461
468
22
Ganeshan
S
,
Humphreys
J
,
Judson
T
.
Reimagining the inpatient palliative care consult: lessons from COVID-19
.
Am J Manag Care
.
2021
;
27
(
7
):
e215
e217
23
Makkar
A
,
Milsten
J
,
McCoy
M
, et al
.
Tele-echocardiography for congenital heart disease screening in a level II neonatal intensive care unit with hybrid telemedicine system
.
Telemed J E Health
.
2021
;
27
(
10
):
1136
1142
24
Yoon
MS
,
Martin
KB
,
Marraccini
RL
,
Norris
ER
.
Provider satisfaction from a new telepsychiatry inpatient consultation service
.
Telemed J E Health
.
2021
;
27
(
10
):
1129
1135
25
Watson
L
,
Woods
CW
,
Cutler
A
,
DiPalazzo
J
,
Craig
AK
.
Telemedicine improves rate of successful first visit to NICU follow-up clinic
.
Hosp Pediatr
.
2023
;
13
(
1
):
3
8
26
Mishra
M
,
Bano
T
,
Mishra
SK
, et al
.
Effectiveness of diabetes education including insulin injection technique and dose adjustment through telemedicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19
.
Diabetes Metab Syndr
.
2021
;
15
(
4
):
102174
27
Allison
A
,
Shahan
J
,
Goodner
J
,
Smith
L
,
Sweet
C
.
Providing essential clinical pharmacy services during a pandemic: virtual video rounding and precepting
.
Am J Health Syst Pharm
.
2021
;
78
(
17
):
1556
1558
28
Turcinovic
M
,
Singson
R
,
Harrigan
M
, et al
.
Physical therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in isolation: feasibility and pilot implementation of telehealth for delivering individualized therapy
.
Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl
.
2021
;
3
(
2
):
100113
29
Ibeziako
P
,
Kaufman
K
,
Scheer
KN
,
Sideridis
G
.
Pediatric mental health presentations and boarding: first year of the COVID-19 pandemic
.
Hosp Pediatr
.
2022
;
12
(
9
):
751
760
30
Haseltine
WA
.
Pediatric mental health is in crisis
.
31
Benton
TD
,
Boyd
RC
,
Njoroge
WFM
.
Addressing the global crisis of child and adolescent mental health
.
JAMA Pediatr
.
2021
;
175
(
11
):
1108
1110
32
Cloutier
RL
,
Marshaall
R
.
A dangerous pandemic pair: Covid19 and adolescent mental health emergencies
.
Am J Emerg Med
.
2021
;
46
:
776
777
33
117th Congress
.
H.R. 7666: Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022
.
Available at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr7666/text. Accessed August 11, 2022
34
US Department of Health and Human Services
.
For providers: telehealth resources for health care providers, including doctors, practitioners, and hospital staff
.
Available at: https://telehealth.hhs.gov/providers. Accessed May 21, 2023
35
Lee
TH
.
Zoom family meeting
.
N Engl J Med
.
2021
;
384
(
17
):
1586
1587

Supplementary data