Practicing in a Pandemic: A Clinician's Guide to Remote Neurologic Care.

Neurologists around the country and the world are rapidly transitioning from traditional in-person visits to remote neurologic care because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Given calls and mandates for social distancing, most clinics have shuttered or are only conducting urgent and emergent visits. As a result, many neurologists are turning to teleneurology with real-time remote video-based visits with patients to provide ongoing care. Although telemedicine utilization and comfort has grown for many acute and ambulatory neurologic conditions in the past decade, remote visits and workflows remain foreign to many patients and neurologists. Here, we provide a practical framework for clinicians to orient themselves to the remote neurologic assessment, offering suggestions for clinician and patient preparation before the visit; recommendations to manage common challenges with remote neurologic care; modifications to the neurologic examination for remote performance, including subspecialty-specific considerations for a variety of neurologic conditions; and a discussion of the key limitations of remote visits. These recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for immediate implementation as neurologists transition to remote care. These will be relevant not only for practice today but also for the likely sustained expansion of teleneurology following the pandemic.

Movement Disorders Virtual Fellowship Training in Times of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Single-Center Experience.

Objective: To describe the impact a global pandemic has had on a teaching movement disorders program, as well as its subsequent transition to telemedicine. Methods: In the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we transitioned our movement disorders fellowship program virtually over the course of a few days. Here we describe the parameters used for the telemedicine fellow supervised clinic visit over the course of 2 months. Fellow's input was obtained from a brief survey at the end of the experience. Faculty's experience was collected upon independent faculty discussions. We also summarize the challenges and advantages of this teaching experience and its downsides. Results: A total of 130 patients (102 follow-up and 28 new patients) were seen over 22 clinic days with any of our 3 fellows being supervised by 1 of the 6 attending physicians. The main challenges were related to technical difficulties and lack of portions of the examination such as tone, reflexes, and sensory testing. The main advantages were related to increased patient access and a decrease in scheduling barriers. The overall satisfaction with the experience of the fellows was positive (69%). Conclusions: This sample shows the feasibility (despite lack of prior experience) of virtual clinical supervision of movement disorders fellows for follow-up and new complex patient encounters. This novel method for movement disorders training has implications for training locally, nationally, and internationally. Limitations and possible future directions such as the inclusion of nonsynchronous recordings and devices for tone and balance testing are also discussed.