ABSTRACT
Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of telemedicine using a standardized multiorgan ultrasound assessment protocol to guide untrained on-site general practitioners at a field hospital during a life-threatening crisis. Materials and Methods: We evaluated 11 inpatients with shock, with or without acute dyspnea, for whom general practitioners spontaneously requested remote evaluation by a specialist. Results: All of the general practitioners accepted the protocol and were able to position the transducer correctly, thus obtaining key images of the internal jugular vein, lungs, and inferior vena cava when guided remotely by a telemedicine physician, who interpreted all of the findings. However, only four (36%) of the on-site general practitioners obtained the appropriate key image of the heart in the left parasternal long-axis view, and only three (27%) received an immediate interpretation of an image from the remote physician. The mean evaluation time was 22.7 ± 12 min (range, 7-42 min). Conclusion: Even in life-threatening situations, untrained general practitioners may be correctly guided by telemedicine specialists to perform multiorgan point-of-care ultrasound in order to improve bedside diagnostic evaluation.
Objetivo: Avaliar a viabilidade da orientação por telemedicina de médicos in situ não treinados na avaliação ultrassonográfica de múltiplos órgãos mediante protocolo padronizado, durante uma situação de risco de vida em hospital de campanha. Materiais e Métodos: Avaliamos 11 pacientes com choque e/ou dispneia de manifestação aguda durante a internação, cujos clínicos gerais solicitaram auxílio de especialista a distância. Resultados: Todos os médicos aceitaram o protocolo e, posicionando o transdutor, obtiveram imagens-chave da veia jugular interna, pulmão e veia cava inferior, quando guiados por um médico via telemedicina, que interpretou os achados desses órgãos. No entanto, apenas quatro (36%) médicos in situ obtiveram a imagem-chave apropriada do coração na janela paraesternal do eixo longo esquerdo e três (27%) tiveram imagem remotamente interpretada imediatamente. O tempo de avaliação variou de 7-42 minutos (média de 22,7 ± 12 minutos). Conclusão: Em situação de risco de vida, os clínicos gerais não treinados podem ser corretamente orientados por especialistas em telemedicina para realizar ultrassonografia multiórgãos in situ, melhorando o diagnóstico beira do leito.
ABSTRACT
Objective To evaluate the feasibility of telemedicine using a standardized multiorgan ultrasound assessment protocol to guide untrained on-site general practitioners at a field hospital during a life-threatening crisis. Materials and Methods We evaluated 11 inpatients with shock, with or without acute dyspnea, for whom general practitioners spontaneously requested remote evaluation by a specialist. Results All of the general practitioners accepted the protocol and were able to position the transducer correctly, thus obtaining key images of the internal jugular vein, lungs, and inferior vena cava when guided remotely by a telemedicine physician, who interpreted all of the findings. However, only four (36%) of the on-site general practitioners obtained the appropriate key image of the heart in the left parasternal long-axis view, and only three (27%) received an immediate interpretation of an image from the remote physician. The mean evaluation time was 22.7 ± 12 min (range, 7-42 min). Conclusion Even in life-threatening situations, untrained general practitioners may be correctly guided by telemedicine specialists to perform multiorgan point-of-care ultrasound in order to improve bedside diagnostic evaluation.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To analyze telemedicine diagnostic accuracy in patients with respiratory infections during COVID-19 pandemic compared to face-to-face evaluation in the emergency department. METHODS: Randomized, unicentric study between September 2020 and November 2020 in patients with any respiratory symptom (exclusion criteria: age >65 years, chronic heart or lung diseases, immunosuppressed). Patients were randomized 1:1 for brief telemedicine followed by face-to-face consultation or direct face-to-face evaluation. The primary endpoint was the International Classification of Diseases code. The secondary analysis comprised length of stay, diagnostic test ordering, medical prescription, and proposed destination. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled. The mean age was 36.3±9.7 years old, 57.1% were women, and 81.6% had diagnostic test ordered. Mean grouped by International Classification of Diseases code for upper respiratory tract infection, pharyngotonsillitis, and sinusitis showed no difference between study groups or secondary endpoints. The Telemedicine Group was representative of the population usually evaluated in this center. In the Telemedicine Group (n=48), 18.7% patients would be referred for evaluation at the emergency department. The distribution of diagnoses by telemedicine was 67.4% for upper respiratory tract infection, 2.3% for pharyngotonsillitis, and 0% for sinusitis, being statistically similar to the subsequent face-to-face assessment, respectively: 72.1%, 11.6% and 7% (Kappa 0.386 [95%CI: 0.112-0.66]; p=0.536). Telemedicine ordered COVID-19 molecular (RT-PCR) tests in 76.5% versus 79.4% in face-to-face evaluation (Kappa 0.715 [95%CI: 0.413-1]; p>0.999). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic telemedicine consultation of low-risk patients with acute respiratory symptoms is not inferior to face-to-face evaluation at emergency department. Telemedicine is to be reinforced in the health care system as a strategy for the initial assessment of acute patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04806477.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Tract Infections , Telemedicine , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Referral and Consultation , Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosisABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to assess the feasibility and patient satisfaction of teleoncology orientation in a vulnerable population of breast cancer patients assessed in a government health system during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. METHODS: Eligible patients received an invitation to receive remote care to minimize exposure to an environment in which the risk of respiratory infection was present. The means of communication was telephone through an application that allows free conversation with no charge. An anonymous-response questionnaire based on a Likert-type scale was sent through a cell phone application or e-mail directly to each patient or close relative of the patient immediately after teleconsultation. Responses to the questions, which addressed utility, facility, interface quality, interaction quality, reliability, satisfaction, and interest in future evaluation, were compiled and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 176 eligible patients scheduled for consultation were evaluated and 98 were included. Seventy (71.4%) successfully undertook the teleorientation. The questionnaire was submitted by 43 (61.4%) patients. The overall teleoncology orientation was classified as very positive by 41 (95.3%) patients. Specifically, regarding the questionnaire items, 43 (100%) patients scored 4 or 5 (agreed that the teleconsultation was beneficial) concerning the facility, followed by 42 (97.2%) for the interface quality, 41 (95.3%) for both utility and interaction quality, 40 (93%) for satisfaction and interest in future evaluation, and, finally, 39 (90.6%) for reliability. CONCLUSION: Teleoncology orientation of low-income breast cancer patients is most feasible and leads to high patient satisfaction.
OBJETIVO: O presente estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a viabilidade e satisfação em relação à orientação teleoncológica realizada em população vulnerável de pacientes com câncer de mama e provenientes do sistema público de saúde durante a pandemia do coronavírus em 2020. MéTODOS: Pacientes elegíveis foram agendados para atendimento remoto visando minimizar exposição a ambientes com risco de infecção respiratória. O meio de comunicação foi o telefone, pois permite conversa sem custos. Um questionário anônimo com base na escala Likert foi enviado através de aplicativo de telefone celular ou e-mail para paciente ou familiares, logo após a teleconsulta. As respostas, que abordavam utilidade, facilidade, qualidade da interface, qualidade da interação, confiabilidade, satisfação e interesse em avaliações futuras, foram compiladas e analisadas. RESULTADOS: Um total de 176 pacientes elegíveis para teleconsulta foram avaliados e 98 foram incluídos. Setenta (71,4%) realizaram a teleorientação com sucesso. O questionário foi respondido por 43 (61,4%) pacientes. De maneira geral, a teleorientação foi classificada como muito positiva por 41 (95,3%) pacientes. Em relação aos itens avaliados, 43 (100%) pacientes pontuaram 4 ou 5 (concordaram que a teleconsulta era benéfica) em relação à facilidade do serviço, seguido por 42 (97,2%) para a qualidade da interface, 41 (95,3%) tanto para a utilidade quanto para a qualidade da interação, 40 (93%) para satisfação e interesse em avaliação futura e 39 (90,6%) para confiabilidade em relação ao método. CONCLUSãO: A orientação teleoncológica em pacientes de baixa renda e com câncer de mama mostrou ser viável e com altas taxas de satisfação.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , COVID-19 , Remote Consultation , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Patient Satisfaction , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Teledermatology has been proving to be of great help for delivering healthcare, especially now, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. It is crucial to assess how accurate this method can be for evaluating different dermatoses. Such knowledge can contribute to the dermatologists' decision of whether to adhere to teledermatology or not. Our objective was to determine the accuracy of teledermatology in the 10 most frequent skin neoplasms in our population, comparing telediagnosis to histopathological report and in-person dermatologists' diagnosis. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in São Paulo, Brazil, where a store-and-forward teledermatology project was implemented under primary-care attention to triage surgical, more complex, or severe dermatoses. A total of 30,976 patients presenting 55,012 lesions took part in the project. Thirteen teledermatologists who participated in the project had three options to refer the patients: send them directly to biopsy, to the in-person dermatologist, or back to the general physician with the most probable diagnosis and management. In the groups referred to the in-person dermatologist and biopsy, we looked for the 10 most frequent International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 (ICD-10) of skin neoplasms, which resulted in 289 histopathologic reports and 803 in-person dermatologists' diagnosis. We were able to compare the ICD-10 codes filled by teledermatologists, in-person dermatologists, and from histopathological reports. The proportion of complete, partial, and no agreement rates between the in-person dermatologist's, histopathologic report, and the teledermatologist's diagnosis was assessed. We also calculated Cohen's kappa, for complete and complete plus partial agreement. The mean complete agreement rate comparing telediagnosis to histopathological report was 54% (157/289; kappa = 0.087), being the highest for malign lesions; to in-person dermatologists was 61% (487/803; kappa = 0.213), highest for benign lesions. When accuracy of telediagnosis for either malign or benign lesions was evaluated, the agreement rate with histopathology was 70% (kappa = 0.529) and with in-person dermatologist, 81% (kappa = 0.582). This study supports that teledermatology for skin neoplasms has moderate accuracy. This result reassures that it can be a proper option for patient care, especially when the goal is to differentiate benign from malign lesions.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Daily multidisciplinary rounds (DMRs) consist of systematic patient-centred discussions aiming to establish joint therapeutic goals for the next 24 hours of intensive care unit (ICU) care. The aim of the present study protocol is to evaluate whether an intervention consisting of guided DMRs, supported by a remote specialist and audit/feedback on care performance will reduce ICU length of stay compared with a control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised superiority trial including 30 ICUs in Brazil (15 intervention and 15 control), from August 2019 to June 2021. In a parallel assignment, ICUs are randomised to a complex-intervention composed by daily rounds carried out through Tele-ICU by a remote ICU physician; development of local quality indicators dashboards coupled with monthly meetings with local leadership; and dissemination of evidence-based clinical protocols versus usual care. Primary outcome is ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes include classification of the unit according to the profiles defined by the standardised resource use and the standardised mortality rate, hospital mortality, incidence of healthcare-associated infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, patient-days receiving oral or enteral feeding, patient-days under light sedation or alert and calm, rate of patients under normoxaemia. All adult patients admitted after the beginning of the study in each participant ICU will be enrolled. Inclusion criteria (clusters): public Brazilian ICUs with a minimum of 8 ICU beds interested/committed to participating in the study. Exclusion criteria (clusters): units with fully established DMRs by an intensivist, specialised or step-down units. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the coordinator centre, and by IRBs of each enrolled hospital/ICU. Statistical analysis protocol is being prepared for submission before the end of patient's enrolment. Results will be disseminated through conferences, peer-reviewed journals and to each participating unit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03920501; Pre-results.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telescopes , Adult , Brazil , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: To characterize variables associated with referral to the emergency department following Telemedicine consultation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Cross-sectional retrospective study conducted between March and May 2020, with a sample of 500 adult patients. The inclusion criterion was the manifestation of respiratory symptoms, regardless of type. Results: The mean age of patients was 34.7±10.5 years, and 59% were women. Most patients (62.6%) perceived their own health status as malaise and some (41.4%) self-diagnosed COVID-19. Cough (74.4%), rhinorrhea (65.6%), sore throat (38.6%) and sneezing (20.6%) were the most common infection-related symptoms. Overall, 29.4% and 16% of patients reported dyspnea and chest pain, respectively. The Roth score was calculated for a sizeable number of patients (67.6%) and was normal, moderately altered or severely altered in 83.5%, 10.7% and 5.6% of patients, respectively. The percentage of suspected COVID-19 cases was 67.6%. Of these, 75% were managed remotely and only one quarter referred for emergency assessment. Conclusion: Telemedicine assessment is associated with reclassification of patient's subjective impression, better inspection of coronavirus disease 2019 and identification of risk patients. Referral is therefore optimized to avoid inappropriate in-person assessment, and low-risk patients can be properly guided. Telemedicine should be implemented in the health care system as a cost-effective strategy for initial assessment of acute patients. RESUMO Objetivo: Caracterizar as variáveis associadas ao encaminhamento à emergência após consulta de Telemedicina durante a pandemia de COVID-19. Métodos: Estudo transversal e retrospectivo, realizado entre março e maio de 2020, com amostra de 500 pacientes adultos. O critério de inclusão foi apresentação de sintomas respiratórios, independente do tipo. Resultados: A média de idade dos pacientes foi de 34,7±10,5 anos, e 59% eram do sexo feminino. A maioria dos pacientes (62,6%) se classificou subjetivamente como tendo um mal-estar, e alguns (41,4%) autodiagnosticaram COVID-19. Tosse (74,4%), rinorreia (65,6%), dor de garganta (38,6%) e espirros (20,6%) foram os sintomas mais comuns relacionados à infecção. Dispneia e dor torácica foram relatados por 29,4% e 16% dos pacientes, respectivamente. Foi calculado o escore de Roth de um número considerável de pacientes (67,6%), obtendo resultado normal em 83,5%, moderadamente alterado em 10,7% e grave em 5,6%. A percentagem de casos suspeitos de COVID-19 foi de 67,6%, e 75% desses foram gerenciados remotamente, com apenas um quarto sendo encaminhado para avaliação imediata na emergência. Conclusão: A avaliação da Telemedicina está associada à reclassificação da impressão subjetiva do paciente, melhor inspeção da COVI-19 e identificação de pacientes de risco. O encaminhamento é otimizado, para evitar avaliação presencial inadequada, e permite que os pacientes de baixo risco sejam orientados de forma apropriada. A Telemedicina deve ser implementada no sistema de saúde como estratégia com boa relação custo-efetividade para a avaliação inicial de pacientes agudos.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective: To characterize variables associated with referral to the emergency department following Telemedicine consultation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Cross-sectional retrospective study conducted between March and May 2020, with a sample of 500 adult patients. The inclusion criterion was the manifestation of respiratory symptoms, regardless of type. Results: The mean age of patients was 34.7±10.5 years, and 59% were women. Most patients (62.6%) perceived their own health status as malaise and some (41.4%) self-diagnosed COVID-19. Cough (74.4%), rhinorrhea (65.6%), sore throat (38.6%) and sneezing (20.6%) were the most common infection-related symptoms. Overall, 29.4% and 16% of patients reported dyspnea and chest pain, respectively. The Roth score was calculated for a sizeable number of patients (67.6%) and was normal, moderately altered or severely altered in 83.5%, 10.7% and 5.6% of patients, respectively. The percentage of suspected COVID-19 cases was 67.6%. Of these, 75% were managed remotely and only one quarter referred for emergency assessment. Conclusion: Telemedicine assessment is associated with reclassification of patient's subjective impression, better inspection of coronavirus disease 2019 and identification of risk patients. Referral is therefore optimized to avoid inappropriate in-person assessment, and low-risk patients can be properly guided. Telemedicine should be implemented in the health care system as a cost-effective strategy for initial assessment of acute patients. RESUMO Objetivo: Caracterizar as variáveis associadas ao encaminhamento à emergência após consulta de Telemedicina durante a pandemia de COVID-19. Métodos: Estudo transversal e retrospectivo, realizado entre março e maio de 2020, com amostra de 500 pacientes adultos. O critério de inclusão foi apresentação de sintomas respiratórios, independente do tipo. Resultados: A média de idade dos pacientes foi de 34,7±10,5 anos, e 59% eram do sexo feminino. A maioria dos pacientes (62,6%) se classificou subjetivamente como tendo um mal-estar, e alguns (41,4%) autodiagnosticaram COVID-19. Tosse (74,4%), rinorreia (65,6%), dor de garganta (38,6%) e espirros (20,6%) foram os sintomas mais comuns relacionados à infecção. Dispneia e dor torácica foram relatados por 29,4% e 16% dos pacientes, respectivamente. Foi calculado o escore de Roth de um número considerável de pacientes (67,6%), obtendo resultado normal em 83,5%, moderadamente alterado em 10,7% e grave em 5,6%. A percentagem de casos suspeitos de COVID-19 foi de 67,6%, e 75% desses foram gerenciados remotamente, com apenas um quarto sendo encaminhado para avaliação imediata na emergência. Conclusão: A avaliação da Telemedicina está associada à reclassificação da impressão subjetiva do paciente, melhor inspeção da COVI-19 e identificação de pacientes de risco. O encaminhamento é otimizado, para evitar avaliação presencial inadequada, e permite que os pacientes de baixo risco sejam orientados de forma apropriada. A Telemedicina deve ser implementada no sistema de saúde como estratégia com boa relação custo-efetividade para a avaliação inicial de pacientes agudos.