Provider Experience with Teleneurology in an Academic Neurology Department.

Introduction: Teleneurology has become widely adopted during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. However, provider impressions about the teleneurology experience are not well described. Methods: A novel questionnaire was developed to collect provider impressions about video teleneurology encounters. All providers in the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) Neurology Department (N = 162) were asked to complete a questionnaire after each video teleneurology patient encounter between April and August 2020. Individual patient and encounter-level data were extracted from the electronic medical record. Results: One thousand six hundred three surveys were completed by 55 providers (response rate of 10.12%). The history obtained and the ability to connect with the patient were considered the same or better than an in-person visit in almost all encounters. The quality of the physician-patient relationship was good or excellent in 93%, while the overall experience was the same as an in-person visit in 73% of visits and better in 12%. Sixty-eight percent of respondents reported that none of the elements of the neurological examination if performed in person would have changed the assessment and plan. Assessment of the visit as the same or better increased from 83% in April to 89% in July and 95% in August. Headache (91%), multiple sclerosis and neuroimmunology (96%), and movement disorder (89%) providers had the highest proportion of ratings of same or better overall experience and neuromuscular providers the lowest (60%). Conclusions: Provider impressions about the teleneurology history, examination, and provider-patient relationship are favorable in the majority of responses. Important differences emerge between provider specialty and visit characteristics groups.

Delayed hospital admission for traumatic hip fractures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Concerns of contracting the highly contagious disease COVID-19 have led to a reluctance in seeking medical attention, which may contribute to delayed hospital arrival among traumatic patients. The study objective was to describe differences in time from injury to arrival for patients with traumatic hip fractures admitted during the pandemic to pre-pandemic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study at six level I trauma centers included patients with traumatic hip fractures. Patients with a non-fall mechanism and those who were transferred in were excluded. Patients admitted 16 March 2019-30 June 2019 were in the "pre-pandemic" group, patients were admitted 16 March 2020-30 June 2020 were in the "pandemic" group. The primary outcome was time from injury to arrival. Secondary outcomes were time from arrival to surgical intervention, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and mortality. RESULTS: There were 703 patients, 352 (50.1%) pre-pandemic and 351 (49.9%) during the pandemic. Overall, 66.5% were female and the median age was 82 years old. Patients were similar in age, race, gender, and injury severity score. The median time from injury to hospital arrival was statistically shorter for pre-pandemic patients when compared to pandemic patients, 79.5 (56, 194.5) min vs. 91 (59, 420), p = 0.04. The time from arrival to surgical intervention (p = 0.64) was statistically similar between groups. For both groups, the median HLOS was 5 days, p = 0.45. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher during the pandemic, 1.1% vs 3.4%, p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: While time from injury to hospital arrival was statistically longer during the pandemic, the difference may not be clinically important. Time from arrival to surgical intervention remained similar, despite changes made to prevent COVID-19 transmission.