ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Proctologic issues entail a frequent reason for consultation in the emergency department (ED). We aim to analyze how the SARS-COV-2 pandemic has impacted in the demand for proctological consultations. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Descriptive comparative retrospective study of cross-sectional cohorts of patients attending the ED for proctological complaints from March to April in 2020 and 2019. Demographic variables, comorbidities, reasons for consultation and diagnosis, treatment and readmission were included. Four periods were analyzed according to the different stages of the pandemic derived limitations. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were reviewed, 58 in 2020 and 133 in 2019 with an average age of 48 years (SD 20.1) and 112 (58.6%) males. The average number of daily consultations was 2.18 patients in 2019 versus 0.95 in 2020 (p=0.025) meaning a 56% reduction in consultations for proctological reasons. This difference in average consultations was significant in both periods of lockout (p=0.001) and previous de-escalation (p=0.014). The diagnosis distribution was similar between both periods; however, perianal abscesses doubled their rate in 2020, 22.4% versus 11.3% (p=0.045). There was an increasing need for surgery, 31% vs 15% (p=0.011) with no difference in outpatients regimen after emergency surgery (12.5% vs 7.5%, p=0.201). Three patients in 2020 required readmission to the ED (5.2% vs 12.9%, p=0.086). CONCLUSION: There was a decrease of a 56% in proctologic emergency consultation, however, the need for surgery was twice more frequent during the study period. Reflection on the use of emergencies for proctological reasons is warranted.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Introduction: The pandemic produced by SARS-CoV-2 has obliged us to set up the tele-assistance to offer a continuity of care. This implies an innovation, being the degree of satisfaction of patients unknown. Methods: A telephonic survey was conducted with the validated in the Spanish tool Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (Telehealth Usability Questionnaire; rating from 1-7) of all candidate patients assisted consecutively in the Coloproctology Unit. We included demographic variables, education level, job status, diagnosis and consultation type. A descriptive study was done. The relationship between the willingness of consultation model in the future (telemedicine vs traditional) and the categorical variables was analysed through the chi-squared test. Results: A total of 115 patients were included. The average age was 59.9 years, being 60% women. The average score in each of the survey items was higher than 6 in all the questions but 1. 26.1% of the surveyed patients confessed being advocated to tele-assistance in the future. The only factors related to greater willingness to tele-assistance were male gender (37% vs 18.8%; P = .03) and a higher academic preparation level in favour of higher technical studies (35.9%) and university studies (32.4%) opposite to the rest (P = .043). The rest of variables studied, job status, labour regimen, diagnostic group and consultation type did not show any relationship. Conclusions: A vast majority of patients answered favourably to almost all the items of the survey. However, only 26.1% of them would choose a model of tele-assistance without restrictions.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Surgery , Remote Consultation , Telemedicine , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Satisfaction , Personal Satisfaction , SARS-CoV-2 , TelephoneABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Proctologic issues entail a frequent reason for consultation in the emergency department (ED). We aim to analyze how the SARS-COV-2 pandemic has impacted in the demand for proctological consultations. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Descriptive comparative retrospective study of cross-sectional cohorts of patients attending the ED for proctological complaints from March to April in 2020 and 2019. Demographic variables, comorbidities, reasons for consultation and diagnosis, treatment and readmission were included. Four periods were analyzed according to the different stages of the pandemic derived limitations. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients were reviewed, 58 in 2020 and 133 in 2019 with an average age of 48 years (SD 20.1) and 112 (58.6%) males. The average number of daily consultations was 2.18 patients in 2019 versus 0.95 in 2020 (p=0.025) meaning a 56% reduction in consultations for proctological reasons. This difference in average consultations was significant in both periods of lockout (p=0.001) and previous de-escalation (p=0.014). The diagnosis distribution was similar between both periods; however, perianal abscesses doubled their rate in 2020, 22.4% versus 11.3% (p=0.045). There was an increasing need for surgery, 31% vs 15% (p=0.011) with no difference in outpatients regimen after emergency surgery (12.5% vs 7.5%, p=0.201). Three patients in 2020 required readmission to the ED (5.2% vs 12.9%, p=0.086). CONCLUSION: There was a decrease of a 56% in proctologic emergency consultation, however, the need for surgery was twice more frequent during the study period. Reflection on the use of emergencies for proctological reasons is warranted.