Retrospective study evaluating telehealth antenatal anesthesia consults for high-risk obstetric patients.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth has gained popularity, particularly in the COVID-19 era. The use of telehealth is now being applied to preoperative evaluation clinics in an effort to overcome barriers to antenatal anesthesia assessment of high-risk obstetrical patients. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine if the quality of antenatal anesthesia telehealth consults of high-risk obstetric patients is comparable to in-person encounters. This is determined by assessing if telehealth consults are feasible and meet the standards of care, as well as the level of patient satisfaction and ease of use as reported by providers. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective study assessed patients prior to delivery who completed a video-telehealth anesthesia consultation (51 cases) from November 1st, 2019 to November 30th, 2020 and all of those for patients receiving an in-person anesthesia consultation (171 controls) from November 2017 through October 2019. Our primary hypothesis was that telehealth and in-person consultations would not result in different standards of care. The primary outcome was an indicator of meeting the standard of care, and the difference in proportions between the telehealth and in-person consultation was tested by Fisher's exact test. Our secondary hypotheses were that patients reported high levels of satisfaction and could use telehealth easily and providers could use the platform easily. Secondary outcomes were assessed by using the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) and the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) surveys, respectively. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, 94.1% (48/51) of telehealth and 89.5% (153/171) of in-person visits met the standard of care, indicating no significant difference between groups (p-value = .4204). The CARE score was 46 [41,50] {median [interquartile range]}, (p-value < .0001), indicating patient satisfaction with telehealth. The use-average scores on the TUQ for the patient and provider were 6.67 [6.33, 7] and 6 [5.33, 7] respectively, indicating great system usability. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates no significant difference in the standard of care between in-person and telehealth visits. Furthermore, telehealth consultation was feasible and associated with high patient satisfaction and platform usability. Preoperative consultation of high-risk obstetric patients using telehealth visits should be routinely considered in clinical practice.Condensation: There is no significant difference in the standard of care between in-person and telehealth antenatal anesthesia consultations, and patients report high satisfaction and platform usability.Telehealth is gaining popularity, but its role in antenatal anesthesia consultation of high risk obstetrical patients has not yet been defined with respect to standard of care, patient satisfaction, and platform usability.There was no significant difference in standard of care between in-person and telehealth antenatal anesthesia consultations, and patients reported high satisfaction and platform usability.Telehealth should be considered as an alternative to in-person antenatal anesthesia consultation of high risk obstetrical patients. It is a particularly attractive alternative to in-person consultation due to cost-savings, increased patient accessibility, and ease of use.

Delirium and neuropsychological outcomes in critically Ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the clinical course of delirium for patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, including postdischarge neuropsychological outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review and prospective survey study. SETTING: Intensive care units, large academic tertiary-care centre (USA). PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n=148) with COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit at Michigan Medicine between 1 March 2020 and 31 May 2020 were eligible for inclusion. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Delirium was the primary outcome, assessed via validated chart review method. Secondary outcomes included measures related to delirium, such as delirium duration, antipsychotic use, length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, inflammatory markers and final disposition. Neuroimaging data were also collected. Finally, a telephone survey was conducted between 1 and 2 months after discharge to determine neuropsychological function via the following tests: Family Confusion Assessment Method, Short Blessed Test, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Cognitive Abilities 4a and Patient-Health Questionnaire-9. RESULTS: Delirium was identified in 108/148 (73%) patients, with median (IQR) duration lasting 10 (4-17) days. In the delirium cohort, 50% (54/108) of patients were African American and delirious patients were more likely to be female (76/108, 70%) (absolute standardised differences >0.30). Sedation regimens, inflammation, delirium prevention protocol deviations and hypoxic-ischaemic injury were likely contributing factors, and the most common disposition for delirious patients was a skilled care facility (41/108, 38%). Among patients who were delirious during hospitalisation, 4/17 (24%) later screened positive for delirium at home based on caretaker assessment, 5/22 (23%) demonstrated signs of questionable cognitive impairment or cognitive impairment consistent with dementia and 3/25 (12%) screened positive for depression within 2 months after discharge. CONCLUSION: Patients with COVID-19 commonly experience a prolonged course of delirium in the intensive care unit, likely with multiple contributing factors. Furthermore, neuropsychological impairment may persist after discharge.