The Focused Neurosurgical Examination During Telehealth Visits: Guidelines During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.

OBJECTIVE:  To provide guidelines to healthcare workers for performing a focused neurological examination via telemedicine during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-2019) pandemic. METHODS:  We reviewed our department's outpatient clinic visits after the implementation of a telemedicine protocol in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Crossover rates from telehealth to in-person visits were evaluated and guidelines for performing a telemedicine neurological exam were created based on the consensus of 16 neurosurgical attending providers over a four-month period. RESULTS:  From March 23, 2020 to July 20, 2020, some 2157 telehealth visits were performed in our department. Some 26 were converted to in-person visits by the provider request with the most cited reason for conversion being the need for a more detailed patient evaluation. Based on these experiences, we created a graphical tutorial to address the key components of the neurological exam with adaptations specific to the telehealth visit. CONCLUSIONS:  In response to the global coronavirus pandemic, telemedicine has become an integral part of neurosurgeons' daily practice. Telemedicine failures remain low but primarily occur due to a need for more comprehensive evaluations. We provide guidelines for the neurosurgical exam during telehealth visits in an effort to assuage some of these issues.

Telemedicine in Neurosurgery: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Review of the Literature for the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.

BACKGROUND: Evolving requirements for patient and physician safety and rapid regulatory changes have stimulated interest in neurosurgical telemedicine in the COVID-19 era. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review investigating treatment of neurosurgical patients via telemedicine, and to evaluate barriers and challenges. Additionally, we review recent regulatory changes that affect telemedicine in neurosurgery, and our institution's initial experience. METHODS: A systematic review was performed including all studies investigating success regarding treatment of neurosurgical patients via telemedicine. We reviewed our department's outpatient clinic billing records after telemedicine was implemented from 3/23/2020 to 4/6/2020 and reviewed modifier 95 inclusion to determine the number of face-to-face and telemedicine visits, as well as breakdown of weekly telemedicine clinic visits by subspecialty. RESULTS: A total of 52 studies (25 prospective and 27 retrospective) with 45 801 patients were analyzed. A total of 13 studies were conducted in the United States and 39 in foreign countries. Patient management was successful via telemedicine in 99.6% of cases. Telemedicine visits failed in 162 cases, 81.5% of which were due to technology failure, and 18.5% of which were due to patients requiring further face-to-face evaluation or treatment. A total of 16 studies compared telemedicine encounters to alternative patient encounter mediums; telemedicine was equivalent or superior in 15 studies. From 3/23/2020 to 4/6/2020, our department had 122 telemedicine visits (65.9%) and 63 face-to-face visits (34.1%). About 94.3% of telemedicine visits were billed using face-to-face procedural codes. CONCLUSION: Neurosurgical telemedicine encounters appear promising in resource-scarce times, such as during global pandemics.

Neuro-oncology practice guidelines from a high-volume surgeon at the COVID-19 epicenter.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, physicians have begun adapting their daily practices to prevent transmissions. In this study we aimed to provide surgical neuro-oncologists with practice guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic based on objective data from a high-volume brain tumor surgeon at the current COVID-19 epicenter. METHODS: All outpatient visits and surgeries performed by the senior author during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared between the initial quarantine (3/23/20-5/4/20), the plateau period following quarantine (5/5/20-6/27/20), and the second peak (6/28/20-7/20/20). In-person and telemedicine visits were evaluated for crossovers. Surgeries were subdivided based on lesion type and evaluated across the same time period. RESULTS: From 3/23/20-7/20/20, 469 clinic visits and 196 surgeries were identified. After quarantine was lifted, face-to-face visits increased (P < 0.01) yet no change in telehealth visits occurred. Of 327 telehealth visits, only 5.8% converted to in-person during the 4-month period with the most cited reason being patient preference (68.4%). Of the 196 surgeries performed during the pandemic, 29.1% occurred during quarantine, 49.0% during the plateau, and 21.9% occurred in the second peak. No COVID negative patients developed symptoms at follow-up. 55.6% were performed on malignant tumors and 31.6% were benign with no difference in case volumes throughout the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Despite exceptional challenges, we have maintained a high-volume surgical neuro-oncology practice at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. We provide the protocols implemented at our institution in order to maximize neuro-oncology care while mitigating risk of COVID-19 exposure to both patients and providers.

Differences Between Neurosurgical Subspecialties in Telehealth Adoption.

OBJECTIVE: The health care field has been faced with unprecedented challenges during the COVID 19 pandemic. One such challenge was the implementation of enhanced telehealth capabilities to ensure continuity of care. In this study, we aim to understand differences between subspecialties with regard to patient consent and satisfaction following telehealth implementation. METHODS: A retrospective review of the electronic medical record was performed from March 2 to May 8, 2020 to evaluate surgical consents before and after telehealth implementation. Press Ganey survey results were also obtained both pre- and posttelehealth implementation and compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the percentage of new patients consented for surgery (after being seen via telehealth only) between the cranial and spine services. For procedures in which >10 patients were consented for surgery, the highest proportion of patients seen only via telehealth was for ventriculoperitoneal shunt placement/endoscopic third ventriculostomy for the cranial service, and lumbar laminectomy and microdiscectomy for the spine service. Additionally, the spine service experienced marked improvement in Press Ganey scores posttelehealth implementation with overall doctor ranking improving from the 29th to the 93rd percentile, and likelihood to recommend increasing from the 24th to the 94th percentile. CONCLUSIONS: There were clear trends with regard to which pathologies and procedures were most amenable to telehealth visits, which suggests a potential roadmap for future clinic planning. Additionally, the notable improvement in spine patient satisfaction following the implementation of a telehealth program suggests the need for long-term process changes.