ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Baseline disparities in non-discretionary risk factors, i.e., those not readily altered, like family size and work environment, appear to underlie the disproportionate COVID-19 infection rates seen among Hispanic persons and, at surge onsets, Black persons. No study has systematically compared such risk factors by race/ethnicity among infected individuals. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional survey, we compared household, job, and socioeconomic characteristics among 260 Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White adults with confirmed or probable COVID-19 in New York from March to May 2020. We used logistic regression to identify independent relationships. RESULTS: In bivariate analysis, we found significant differences by race/ethnicity in the following: (1) rates of household crowding (p < 0.001), which were highest for Hispanic patients (45.1%) and lowest for White patients (0.9%); (2) rates of non-healthcare frontline work (p < 0.001), which were highest for Hispanic patients (71.0% of those employed) and lowest for White patients (31.4%); (3) rates of working close to people (p < 0.001), which were highest for Black patients (69.4%) and lowest for Hispanic patients (32.3%); and (4) rates of frontline healthcare work (p = 0.004), which were higher for Black (44.9%) and White (44.3%) patients than Hispanic patients (19.4%). Adjusting for covariates eliminated most differences but not that for household crowding. CONCLUSIONS: Non-discretionary COVID-19 risk factors among patients in the initial surge differed substantially by race/ethnicity. Socioeconomic factors explained most differences, but household crowding was independently associated with Hispanic ethnicity. Our findings highlight the ongoing need for universal safeguards for US frontline workers, including mandated paid sick leave and expanded affordable housing options.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The global adoption of teleconsultation has been expedited as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. By allowing remote communication, teleconsultation may help limit the spread of the virus while maintaining the crucial patient-provider relationship. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the value of teleconsultation compared to in-person visits in the management of elective orthopedic and spinal procedures. METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study of 853 patients receiving orthopedic and spinal care at a private outpatient clinic in New Zealand. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: (1) patients receiving telephone consultation remotely, and (2) patients receiving in-person office consultations at the outpatient clinic. All patients received telephone consultations for 4 weeks during the mandated COVID-19 lockdown, followed by 4 weeks of telephone or in-person consultation. Patient preference, satisfaction, and duration of visit were recorded. Comparisons of patient preference between groups, visit type, sex, and location were performed using chi-square tests; similarly, satisfaction scores and visit durations were compared using a general linear model. RESULTS: We report that 91% (353/388) of patients in the telephone group preferred teleconsultation over in-person office visits during the COVID-19 lockdown (P<.001). A combined-group analysis showed that 55.3% (446/807) of all patients preferred teleconsultation compared to 31.2% (252/807) who preferred in-person office visits (P<.001). Patients in the telephone group reported significantly higher satisfaction scores (mean 9.95, SD 0.04, 95% CI 9.87-10.03) compared to patients in the in-person group (mean 9.53, SE 0.04, 95% CI 9.45-9.62; P<.001). Additionally, in-person consultations were significantly longer in duration compared to telephone consultations, with a mean visit time of 6.70 (SE 0.18) minutes, 95% CI 6.32-7.02, compared to 5.10 (SE 0.17) minutes, 95% CI 4.73-5.42 (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who use telephone consultations are more likely to prefer it over traditional, in-person visits in the future. This increased preference, coupled with higher patient satisfaction scores and shorter duration of visits, suggests that teleconsultation has a role in orthopedic surgery, which may even extend beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The primary purpose of this review was to evaluate patient and physician preference and satisfaction for teleconsultation in orthopaedic surgery compared to traditional face-to-face consultation. In addition, we evaluated the effects of teleconsultation on patient length of visit, healthcare costs, range of motion (ROM), pain, quality of life (QOL), and ongoing management plans. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Randomised control trials and case control studies comparing teleconsultation with traditional, face-to-face consultation in the management of orthopaedic conditions were included. The primary outcome measures were patient and physician preference and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included patient length of visit, healthcare costs, ROM, pain, QOL, and ongoing management plans. RESULTS: A total of 13 articles meeting the eligibility criteria were included for systematic review and 8 for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction, length of visit, or time spent with the physician between the telemedicine and in-office control group. The mean difference of patient preference for telemedicine was significantly higher in the telemedicine group compared to the in-office visit group (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.12-1.87, p = 0.005). DISCUSSION: Telemedicine was not inferior to face-to-face office visits in regard to patient and physician preference and satisfaction. Therefore, it would be an effective adjunct to face-to-face office visits, serving as a mechanism of triage and long-term continuity of care.