Satisfaction and feasibility of videoconsultation (VC) in orthopaedic and trauma surgery in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: Prospective study of 783 patients.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has required that specialists use videoconsultation (VC) to maintain continuity of care. As in-person consultations (IPCs) and surgical procedures were cancelled, VC became the tool of choice. No recent French study has assessed VC as the main consultation modality. The objective of this prospective study was to evaluate: 1) patient satisfaction, 2) access to and the future of VC, 3) and the reasons for VC refusal in the setting of the pandemic. HYPOTHESIS: Patients responded favourably to VC. PATIENTS AND METHOD: We conducted a prospective, single-centre, observational study of consecutive patients who were invited to switch from IPC to VC during the lockdown of March 16 to May 11, 2020, when IPCs were not available. All patients were included in the study, regardless of whether they accepted the VC. The reasons for refusal were recorded at the time of the invitation. The surgeons sent the patients who accepted an emailed satisfaction questionnaire after the VC. RESULTS: Of the 783 patients with scheduled IPCs, 291 (37.2%) accepted a VC instead, 408 (52.1%) refused the VC, and 84 (10.7%) could not be contacted by telephone and were therefore excluded. The VC acceptance rate was 37% (291/783). Of the 291 VC patients, 233 (80.1%) returned the satisfaction questionnaire, although 2 questionnaires had too many missing data to be included, leaving 231 patients for the analysis. The VC was the first consultation with the surgeon for 66 (28.6%) patients. Of the 165 (71.4%) other patients, 51.6% (85/165) were receiving post-operative follow-up. On a 0-5 scale, the global VC experience was scored 4.3±0.8. Of the 231 VC patients, 161 (69.7%) felt that the VC was equivalent to an IPC, 18 (7.8%) that it was poorer, and 7 (3%) that it was better than an IPC; 45 (19.5%) had no opinion on this point. If choosing between a VC or an IPC had been possible during this first lockdown, 168/231 (72.7%) patients would have chosen an IPC. In contrast, 198/231 (85.7%) patients said they would choose an IPC after the lockdown. The group that refused the VC had a significantly older mean age (57.8±16.4 years vs. 48.0±14.4 years, p<0.0001) and lived closer to the institution (p<0.0001), whereas the sex distribution was comparable, with 42.9% of males (175/408) refusing and 46.8% (108/231) accepting the VC (p=0.39). The main reason for refusal was a wish for an in-person encounter with the surgeon (268/408, 65.7%). Patients aged ≥65 years were more likely to refuse due to technical considerations (access to electronic equipment and to the Internet), whereas patients ≤35 years were more likely to wait for an IPC. CONCLUSION: The rate of satisfaction with the VC was high. Satisfaction was not significantly associated with the reason for the consultation (joint involved, degenerative or post-traumatic condition, first VC, first consultation, or follow-up before or after surgery). Although most patients who accepted the VC felt that this modality was equivalent to an IPC, many remained desirous of an in-person encounter with the surgeon, notably among the youngest individuals. Outside the setting of a pandemic, the IPC remains the consultation modality of choice for most of our patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V, prospective study without a control group.

Satisfaction et faisabilité de la VidéoTéléConsultation (VTC) en chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique dans le contexte d’épidémie de la COVID-19: Etude prospective de 783 patients Satisfaction and Feasibility of Videoconsultation (VC) in Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Prospective Study of 783 Patients

Contexte: L’épidémie COVID-19 a contraint les spécialistes à recourir à la vidéo-téléconsultation (VTC) afin d’assurer un lien médical. Les consultations physiques (CP) et les interventions chirurgicales ayant été annulées, la VTC devait être privilégiée. Il n’existe aucune étude française récente portant sur la VTC comme principale solution de consultation. Aussi nous avons mené une étude prospective afin d’évaluer : 1) la satisfaction des patients, 2) l’accessibilité et l’avenir de la VTC, 3) les motifs de refus à la VTC dans ce contexte. Hypothèse: La VTC a été appréciée favorablement par les patients. Patients et Méthode: Nous avons mené une étude prospective mono-centrique observationnelle d’une série continue de patients contactés pendant la période du confinement du 16 mars au 11 mai 2020 leur proposant de modifier le format de la CP en VTC. L’ensemble des patients étaient considérés dans l’étude, qu’ils aient accepté ou non la VTC. Les motifs de refus étaient recueillis lors de la proposition. En cas d’acceptation, le chirurgien envoyait par mail au patient un questionnaire anonyme de satisfaction après la VTC. Résultats: Sept cent quatre-vingt-trois CP était programmées, 291 VTC ont été réalisées (37,2%), 408 patients (52,1%) ont refusé la VTC, 84 (10,7%) n’ont pu être contactés par téléphone et ont donc été exclus. Le taux d’acceptation à la VTC était de 37% (291/783). Le taux de participation au questionnaire était de 80,1% (233/291) dont 2 réponses très partielles non prises en compte dans le reste des analyses, laissant 231 patients en analyse. Il s’agissait d’une première consultation avec le chirurgien pour 28,6% (66/231) des patients alors que 71,4% (165/231) avaient déjà rencontré le chirurgien et parmi ces derniers, 51,6% (85/165) consultaient pour un suivi après chirurgie. L’expérience globale de la VTC était cotée en moyenne à 4,3 ± 0,8 sur une échelle de 0 à 5. Au total 69,7% (161/231) évaluaient la VTC identique à une CP, mais pour 7,8% (18/231) l’expérience était plus mauvaise et pour 3% (7/231) elle était meilleure, 19,5% (45/231) restaient sans avis. Si le choix entre CP et VTC avait été possible pendant ce premier confinement, 72,7% (168/231) des patients auraient choisi une CP. En revanche, 85,7% (198/231) choisiront une CP après le confinement. Le groupe ayant refusé la VTC était en moyenne significativement plus âgé (57,8 ± 16,4 ans vs 48 ± 14,4 ans (p<0,0001)) et habitait à une distance moins importante de l’institution (p<0,0001), mais il n’y avait pas différence selon le sexe avec 42,9% d’hommes (175/408) en cas de refus de VTC vs 46,8% d’hommes (108/231) (p=0,39)). Le principal motif de refus était la volonté de rencontrer physiquement le praticien dans 65,7% des cas (268/408). Les patients les plus âgés (≥ 65 ans) ont le plus largement évoqué des problèmes matériels (accès équipement et internet), les patients les plus jeunes (≤ 35 ans) préféraient attendre une CP. Conclusion: Un taux élevé de satisfaction a été constaté. Les motifs (articulation, pathologie dégénérative ou traumatique, première VTC, première consultation ou suivi avant ou après chirurgie) n’avaient pas d’influence significative sur la satisfaction. Bien qu’une majorité évaluait la VTC identique à la CP, la population est encore attachée au lien physique lors de la consultation, d’autant plus parmi les plus jeunes. En dehors du contexte épidémique, la CP reste encore le mode de consultation souhaité par une large majorité de nos patients. Niveau de preuve: IV;étude prospective sans groupe contrôle

Military Medical Students' Perspectives on Medical Education in the COVID-19 Era.

In response to the COVID pandemic, Uniformed Services University (USU) suspended clerkships. As the nation's military medical school, USU had to keep students safe while still preparing them to be military physicians. In this commentary, we, a group of USU students, explore what this experience taught us about military medicine.

Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: Evidence from COVID-19.

Scientific novelty drives the efforts to invent new vaccines and solutions during the pandemic. First-time collaboration and international collaboration are two pivotal channels to expand teams' search activities for a broader scope of resources required to address the global challenge, which might facilitate the generation of novel ideas. Our analysis of 98,981 coronavirus papers suggests that scientific novelty measured by the BioBERT model that is pretrained on 29 million PubMed articles, and first-time collaboration increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and international collaboration witnessed a sudden decrease. During COVID-19, papers with more first-time collaboration were found to be more novel and international collaboration did not hamper novelty as it had done in the normal periods. The findings suggest the necessity of reaching out for distant resources and the importance of maintaining a collaborative scientific community beyond nationalism during a pandemic.

Designing and testing a blockchain application for patient identity management in healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare systems suffer from a lack of interoperability that creates "data silos," causing patient linkage and data sharing problems. Blockchain technology's unique architecture provides individuals greater control over their information and may help address some of the problems related to health data. A multidisciplinary team designed and tested a blockchain application, MediLinker, as a patient-centric identity management system. METHODS: The study used simulated data of "avatars" representing different types of patients. Thirty study participants were enrolled to visit simulated clinics, and perform various activities using MediLinker. Evaluation was based on Bouras' criteria for patient-centric identity management and on the number of errors in entry and sharing of data by participants. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the 30 participants completed all study activities. MediLinker fulfilled all of Bouras' criteria except for one which was not testable. A majority of data errors were due to user error, such as wrong formatting and misspellings. Generally, the number of errors decreased with time. Due to COVID-19, sprint 2 was completed using "virtual" clinic visits. The number of user errors were less in virtual visits than in personal visits. DISCUSSION: The evaluation of MediLinker provides some evidence of the potential of a patient-centric identity management system using blockchain technology. The results showed a working system where patients have greater control over their information and can also easily provide consent for use of their data. CONCLUSION: Blockchain applications for identity management hold great promise for use in healthcare but further research is needed before real-world adoption.