ABSTRACT
BackgroundA Fatigue and Activity Management Education in Work (FAME-W) programme was developed for individuals with inflammatory arthritis to manage fatigue in work (McCormick, 2018). FAME-W was designed as an in-person programme;however, due to COVID-19 pandemic it was modified to be an online group-based self-management intervention.ObjectivesThis study tested the effectiveness of an online format of FAME-W for future use by occupational therapist to help individuals with inflammatory arthritis to stay in work.MethodsParticipants were randomly allocated to intervention or control groups. Participants in the intervention group received the online four-week FAME-W and the control group participants received a FAME-W handbook. Participants in the intervention group attended a focus group immediately after the completion of the online FAME-W programme. A qualitative descriptive design was used with semi-structured focus groups. Data were analysed by thematic analysis (Braun and Clark, 2021).ResultsTwenty-six individuals took part in five separate focus groups. The average number of participants per group was 5 individuals with the largest group having 8 and smallest having 3 participants. The majority of participants were female, working full time and had Rheumatoid Arthritis. The four themes emerging from the focus groups were: "content and delivery of the programme” where participants discussed the relevance of the content to their symptoms and the online delivery format of FAME-W. In the second theme, participants discussed "understanding the effects of symptoms on their own and combined” and how symptoms effect mood, work, cognitive and physical abilities. In the third theme, "implementing the knowledge gained from the programme” through goal setting and practicality of the self-management strategies provided were discussed. Final theme "impact of the FAME-W on symptoms and work” including reassurance of normalising symptoms, change in mindset and approach to their condition were discussed.Table 1.ThemesQuotesContent and delivery of the programme"Each of the four sections were all very relevant” "I am quite happy that it is online because face to face would depend on location if I had the choice”Understanding the effects of symptoms on their own and combined"Now I know that I can sleep better when I manage my pain, and I can manage my pain by managing fatigue” "When you have a long-term illness, you don't look at the symptoms individually, you need to break it and look at it individually to know how to manage it”Implementing the knowledge gained from the programme"I'm in a different place today than I was four weeks ago. I am doing well now. So, for me the goal setting is excellent” "Helps you implement the knowledge into your regular routine and check in with yourself”Impact of the FAME-W on symptoms and work"Just a lightbulb moment to say, great, this is not my fault, because you can blame yourself for all the symptoms”ConclusionPreliminary results show that participants found the online FAME-W to be effective, relevant, reassuring, and helpful. These results suggest that work-related self-management skills are essential in assisting participants with symptom management in the workplace. Furthermore, these preliminary results suggest that the online format of FAME-W may be helpful for individuals with inflammatory arthritis to stay in work and it may become a standard part of clinical care for occupational therapists.References[1] McCormack, RC, O'Shea, F, Doran, M, Connolly, D. Impact of a fatigue management in work programme on meeting work demands of individuals with rheumatic diseases: A pilot study. Musculoskeletal Care. 2018;16: 398– 404.[2] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Les patients atteints de maladies musculosquelettiques inflammatoires/auto-immunes (I-RMD) n’ont pas été inclus dans les études de tolérance des vaccins contre le SARS-CoV-2 et sont souvent inquiets quant à la tolérance de la vaccination. Notre objectif est d’étudier la tolérance des vaccins contre le SARS-CoV-2 chez les patients atteints de maladies musculosquelettiques inflammatoires/auto-immunes (I-RMD). Patients et méthodes Pour cela, nous avons créé avec l’EULAR un registre international de cas rapportés par les médecins rhumatologues et internistes de patients atteints d’I-RMD et de RMD non inflammatoire (NI-RMD) vaccinés contre le SARS-CoV-2. Du 5 février 2021 au 27 juillet 2021, nous avons recueilli des données sur la démographie, la vaccination, le diagnostic de RMD, l’activité de la maladie, les traitements immunomodulateurs/immunosuppresseurs, les poussées, les événements indésirables (EI) et les infections COVID-19 chez les patients vaccinés. Les données ont été analysées de manière descriptive. Résultats L’étude a inclus 5121 participants de 30 pays, la majorité de France (40 %), Italie (16 %) et Portugal (14 %), 90 % avec des I-RMD (n=4604, 68 % de femmes, âge moyen 60,5 ans) et 10 % avec des NI-RMD (n=517), 77 % de femmes, âge moyen 71,4 ans. La polyarthrite rhumatoïde (33 %), les connectivites (18 %), les spondyloarthrites (11 %), le rhumatisme psoriaqique (10 %) et les vascularites (12 %) étaient les diagnostics les plus fréquents ;54 % des patients ont reçu des traitements de fond synthétiques conventionnels (csDMARD), 42 % des DMARD biologiques ou ciblés et 35 % des immunosuppresseurs. La plupart des patients ont reçu le vaccin Pfizer/BioNTech (70 %), 17 % AstraZeneca/Oxford et 8 % Moderna. Une infection COVID post-vaccination a été signalée dans 0,7 à 1,1 % des cas, selon le statut vaccinal (entièrement/partiellement vacciné) et le groupe RMD. Des poussées d’I-RMD ont été signalées dans 4,4 % des cas (0,6 % de poussées sévères), dont 1,5 % ont entraîné des changements de médicaments. Des EI ont été signalés dans 37 % des cas (37 % I-RMD, 40 % NI-RMD), des EI sévères dans 0,4 % des cas, très divers et avec une fréquence comparable et même inférieure à celle observée chez les patients atteints de NI-RMD (1,1 %). Discussion La tolérance au vaccin n’était pas différente entre les groupes I-RMD et NI-RMD. Dans les essais cliniques de vaccins à ARN contre le SRAS-CoV-2 dans la population générale, les taux d’EI graves étaient très semblables à ceux de notre étude, allant de 0,4 % à 0,6 % dans le groupe vacciné et de 0,5 % à 0,6 % dans le groupe témoin, ce qui suggère que ces EI graves ne sont pas nécessairement liés au vaccin. Conclusion Il s’agit de la plus grande étude de la tolérance des vaccins anti-SRAS-CoV-2 chez près de 5000 patients atteints de maladies inflammatoires/auto-immunes rhumatologiques. Le profil de sécurité des vaccins contre le SRAS-CoV-2 chez les patients atteints d’I-RMD était rassurant, et comparable à celui des patients atteints de NI-RMD. La majorité des patients ont bien toléré leur vaccination, avec de rares poussée d’I-RMD et de très rares EI sévères probablement non liés à la vaccination. Ces résultats devraient rassurer les rhumatologues et les personnes vaccinées, et favoriser la confiance dans la sécurité du vaccin COVID-19 chez les patients atteints de I-RMD.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare delivery and education of physicians, including rheumatology trainees. Objectives: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical experiences, research opportunities, and well-being of rheumatology trainees. Methods: A voluntary, anonymous, web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish, or French from 19/08/2020 to 05/10/2020. Adult and paediatric rheumatology trainees worldwide in training in 2020 were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple choice questions, Likert scales, and free text answers, we assessed trainee patient care activities, redeployment, research, and well-being. Results: The 302 respondents were from 33 countries, with most (83%, 252/302) in adult rheumatology training. Many trainees (45%, 135/300) reported an increase in non-rheumatology clinical work (e.g. care of COVID-19 patients), with 52% of these (70/135) also continuing rheumatology clinical work. COVID-19 redeployment was not optional for 68% (91/134). Trainees reported a negative impact of the pandemic in their growth in rheumatology (Figure 1). They also reported a substantial impact on several training areas: outpatient clinics (79%, 238/302), inpatient consultations (59%, 177/302), formal teaching (55%, 167/302), procedures (53%, 147/302), teaching opportunities (52%, 157/302), and ultrasonography (36%, 110/302), with 87-96% perceiving a negative impact on these areas. Only 54% (159/294) reported feeling comfortable with their level of clinical supervision during the pandemic (Figure 1). Many trainees (46%, 128/280) reported changes in research experiences during the pandemic;39% (110/285) reported that COVID-19 negatively affected their ability to continue their pre-pandemic research and 50% (142/285) reported difficulty maintaining research goals (Figure 1). Some rheumatology trainees reported having health condition(s) putting them at high risk for COVID-19 (10%, 30/302) and 14% of trainees (41/302) reported having had COVID-19 (Table 1). Only 53% (160/302) reported feeling physically safe in the workplace while 25% (76/302) reported not feeling physically safe;reasons included lack of training about COVID-19, lack of comfort in the clinical setting, insufficient personal protective equipment, immunocompromised state, and pregnancy. Half (151/302) reported burnout and 68% (204/302) an increase in stress from work during the pandemic (Figure 1), whilst 25% (75/302) reported that changes to their training programme negatively impacted their physical health. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the experience of rheumatology training as well as the well-being of trainees globally. Our data highlight concerns for rheumatology trainees including research opportunities and clinical care which should be a focus for curriculum planning.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid increase in remote consultations in rheumatology care. Due to the potential impact of this change on rheumatology clinical training, we investigated trainees' experiences with telemedicine. Objectives: To assess the impact of telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatology training, including supervision. Methods: A voluntary, anonymous web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish, or French from 19/08/2020 to 05/10/2020. Adult and paediatric rheumatology trainees worldwide in training in 2020 were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple choice questions, Likert scales, and free text answers, we collected data regarding prior and current telemedicine use, training, and supervision. Results: 302 respondents from 33 countries completed the survey, with most (83%, 252/302) in adult rheumatology training. Reported use of telemedicine increased from 13% (39/302) pre-pandemic to 82% (247/302) (Table 1). European trainees predominantly utilised audio-only compared to trainees from the rest of the world (ROW) who predominantly utilised audio-video telemedicine. Most trainees continued to evaluate new patients using telemedicine (65%, 161/247). A larger proportion of trainees were comfortable using telemedicine to evaluate follow-up (69% 170/247) versus new patients (25%, 41/161) (Figure 1). Only 32% (97/302) were trained in telemedicine, with the highest proportion among United States (US) trainees (59%, 69/116);subjects included software, clinical skills, and billing. The majority of trainees found this helpful (92%, 89/97). Supervision was most frequently in the form of verbal discussion after the consultation (Table 1);24% (59/247) had no telemedicine supervision during the pandemic. In general, trainees found telemedicine negatively impacted their supervision (51%, 123/242) and clinical teaching quality (70%, 171/244);only 9% reported a positive impact on these areas. Conclusion: Adoption of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to areas of concern for rheumatology trainees including inadequate supervision and clinical teaching. Our results suggest a need for education on evaluation of new patients using telemedicine, increasing telemedicine training, and ensuring adequate supervisory arrangements.
ABSTRACT
Background: There is limited data regarding the risk of hospitalisation in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19 in Ireland. Objectives: We used the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) registry data to study outcomes and their predictors. Methods: We examined data on patients and their disease-related characteristics entered into the COVID-19 GRA provider registry from Ireland (24th March 2020 to 31st August 2020). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of demographic and clinical characteristics with hospitalisation. Results: Of 105 patients, 47 (45.6%) were hospitalised and 10 (9.5%) died. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed age (OR=1.06, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.10), number of comorbidities (OR=1.93, 95%CI 1.11 to 3.35), and glucocorticoid use (OR=15.01, 95%CI 1.77 to 127.16) were significantly associated with hospitalisation. A diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis was associated with a lower odds of hospitalisation (OR=0.09, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.32). Conclusion: Increasing age, comorbidity burden, and glucocorticoid use were associated with hospitalisation, while a diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis was associated with lower odds of hospitalization.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to inform public health practitioners who are designing, adapting and implementing testing and tracing strategies for Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) control. STUDY DESIGN: The study design is monitoring and evaluation of a national public health protection programme. METHODS: All close contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 identified between the 19th May and 2nd August were included; secondary attack rates and numbers needed to test were estimated. RESULTS: Four thousand five hundred eighty six of 7272 (63%) close contacts of cases were tested with at least one test. The secondary attack rate in close contacts who were tested was 7% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 6.3 - 7.8%). At the 'day 0' test, 14.6% (95% CI: 11.6-17.6%) of symptomatic close contacts tested positive compared with 5.2% (95% CI: 4.4-5.9%) of asymptomatic close contacts. CONCLUSIONS: The application of additional symptom-based criteria for testing in this high-incidence population (close contacts) is of limited utility because of the low negative predictive value of absence of symptoms.