Needs of an uninsured equity-deserving minority patient cohort with physical disabilities during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Patients with disabilities and those from diverse equity-deserving backgrounds have been disproportionately affected by the SARS COV-2 ("COVID-19") pandemic. Objective: To describe the significant needs and social determinants of health that affected a group of uninsured patients (from equity-deserving groups) with rehabilitation diagnoses during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Retrospective cohort study utilizing a telephone-based needs assessment from April to October, 2020. Setting: Free interdisciplinary rehabilitation clinic serving patients with physical disabilities from equity-deserving minority backgrounds. Participants: 51 uninsured, diverse patients with spinal cord injuries, brain injuries, amputations, strokes, and other diagnoses requiring interdisciplinary rehabilitation care. Methods: Using a non-structured approach, telephone-based needs assessments were collected monthly. Reported needs were summarized into themes and the frequencies of each theme were recorded. Results: From the total number of concerns, medical issues were reported with the highest frequency (46%), followed by equipment needs (30%) and mental health concerns (30%). Other frequently mentioned needs centered around themes of rent, employment, and supplies. Rent and employment were more frequently cited in earlier months, and equipment problems were more frequently cited in later months. A minority of patients reported they had no needs, some of whom had acquired insurance. Conclusions: Our objective was to describe the needs of a racially and ethnically diverse set of uninsured individuals with physical disabilities seen at a specialized interdisciplinary rehabilitation pro bono clinic during the early months of COVID-19. Medical issues, equipment needs, and mental health concerns were the top three needs. To optimally serve them, care providers must be aware of current and future needs for their underserved patients, especially if future lockdowns occur.

A multi-stakeholder approach is needed to reduce the digital divide and encourage equitable access to telehealth

Since the COVID-19 pandemic onset, there has been exponential growth in the uptake of telehealth, globally. However, evidence suggests that people living in lower socioeconomic areas, cultural and linguistically diverse communities, people with disabilities, and with low health literacy are less likely to receive telehealth services. These population groups have disproportionately higher health needs and face additional barriers to healthcare access. Barriers that reduce access to telehealth further exacerbate existing gaps in care delivery. To improve equity of access to telehealth, we need to reduce the digital divide through a multi-stakeholder approach. This article proposes practical steps to reduce the digital divide and encourage equitable access to telehealth. Enabling more equitable access to telehealth requires improvements in digital health literacy, workforce training in clinical telehealth, co-design of new telehealth-enabled models of care, change management, advocacy for culturally appropriate services, and sustainable funding models.

Supporting best practice telehealth in cancer care: Findings from a national study of telehealth use by cancer services and consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Aims: To understand consumer and clinician experiences in utilizing telehealth in cancer care since the introduction of newMedicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) item numbers for telehealth in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Method(s): A mixed-methods approach was used to collect qualitative and quantitative data on telehealth use during the pandemic: MBS services for cancer-related professional attendances were examined by delivery type, provider type and population group. Health service staff (n = 59) and consumers (n = 1162) from cancer services acrossAustralia were invited to complete online surveys and semi-structured interviews about the use of video and telephone telehealth, perceived effectiveness of video and telephone compared to in-person consultations, and the key barriers and enablers. A virtual roundtable was held with more than 40 key cancer control stakeholders regarding strategies to support the cancer community to offer and utilize best practice approaches to telehealth. Result(s): Telehealth was used across all stages of the cancer care pathway, and was most frequently used during the 'treatment' and 'care after initial treatment and recovery' stages. Although video consults were perceived to be more effective than telephone consults, telephone use was more frequent. Patients and their carers often felt less engagedwith their clinician during telephone consults and perceived that they were rarely given a choice between the consultation modes. Key enablers included medical leadership and administrative support, remuneration (MBS telehealth items), reduced risk of infection, reduction in travel time and costs and existing relationship between patient and clinician. Key barriers included inadequate infrastructure, lack of training, access issues (e.g., internet connectivity) and not being offered the choice of a video consultation. Conclusion(s): Telehealth is appropriate for the delivery of cancer care. A hybrid model of care (telehealth and in-person options) and the ability to give consumers choice is integral to supporting best practice telehealth in cancer care.

Telehealth use in cancer clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic

Aims: Cancer clinical trials have traditionally been conducted inperson. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated changes across the entire cancer care continuum, including in clinical trials and teletrials. This study aimed to investigate how telehealth was used in cancer clinical trials during the pandemic, including benefits and barriers to use;and to identify how telehealth can be further enhanced and routinely integrated into cancer clinical trials in Australia. Method(s): A mixed methods approach was used, involving a scoping review of literature, surveys of staff from 14 multi-site Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trial Groups across Australia (n = 98), and qualitative interviews with trial administrators and clinicians (n = 21). Result(s): The literature showed exponential increase in the use of telehealth in cancer trials internationally during the pandemic. Most study participants agreed that telehealth enabled continuation of trials which may have otherwise been postponed or terminated due to the pandemic. Participants indicated strong willingness to use telehealth for certain aspects of trials due to benefits including improved efficiencies in recruitment and consent processes;improved equity of access for people in rural and regional areas;expedited ethics reviews;convenience of e-prescriptions and reduced need for travel. Barriers included technology issues, inequitable access, activities requiring inperson attendance, regulatory obstacles, remote site capabilities, data quality and security issues, lack of training, and resistance to change. Conclusion(s): The rapid shift to telehealth models during the pandemic was viewed positively by participants, with increased innovation and efficiencies.Many, but not all, aspects of cancer clinical trials are appropriate to be delivered via telehealth. Telehealth is most appropriate in later phase trials;for oral (not IV) drugs;and for activities not requiring physical examinations or invasive interventions. Participants preferred hybrid models which include both telehealth and in-person methods, tailored by cancer type, interventions and patient preferences;supported by clear guidelines and staff training.

A mediasport typology for transformative relationships: enlargement, enhancement, connection and engagement beyond COVID-19. (Special Issue: Sport and COVID-19: impact and challenges for the future: volume 2.)

Research question: The business of sport has been radically challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic, impelling a rapid reassessment of practices to survive the disruption. One stakeholder comprehensively impacted has been the media, whose investments in augmenting sport's commercial appeal have been immense. The media will need to rethink their strategies to adequately leverage their connections to sport products. Similarly, sport properties and content providers will need to reconsider their mediated offerings and how fan relationships can be sustained. In response, this article outlines a pathway to superior fan activation and engagement, noting the accelerated transformation of sport arising in consequence of the pandemic.

St Andrew's COVID-19 surgery safety (StACS) study: The Burns Centre experience.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has the potential to significantly impact burns patients both directly through infective complications of an immunocompromised cohort, and indirectly through disruption of care pathways and resource limitations. The pandemic presents new challenges that must be overcome to maintain patient safety; in particular, the potential increased risks of surgical intervention, anaesthesia and ventilation. This study comprehensively reviews the measures implemented to adapt referral pathways and mitigate the risk posed by COVID-19 during the height of the pandemic, within a large Burns Centre. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was designed to assess patients treated at the Burns Centre during the UK COVID-19 pandemic peak (April-May 2020), following implementation of new safety measures. All patients were analysed for 30-day mortality. In addition, a prospective controlled cohort study was undertaken on all inpatients and a random sample of outpatients with telephone follow-up at 30 days. These patients were divided into three groups (operative inpatients, non-operative inpatients, outpatients). COVID-19 related data collected included test results, contact with proven cases, isolation status and symptoms. The implemented departmental service COVID-19 safety adaptations are described. RESULTS: Of 323 patients treated at the Burns Centre during the study period, no 30-day COVID-19 related deaths occurred (0/323). Of the 80 patients analysed in the prospective controlled cohort section of the study, 51 underwent COVID-19 testing, 3.9% (2/51) were positive. Both cases were in the operative group, however in comparison to the non-operative and outpatient groups, there was no significant increase in COVID-19 incidence in operative patients. CONCLUSIONS: We found no COVID-19 related mortality during the study period. With appropriate precautions, burns patients were not exposed to an increased COVID-19 risk. Similarly, burns patients undergoing operative management were not at a significantly increased risk of contracting COVID-19 in comparison to non-operative groups.

PNS81 Is Telehealth in Primary Care Cost-Effective? a Systematic Review

Objectives: There has been a rapid uptake of telehealth in primary care during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic;the challenge now is ensuring that telehealth will be sustainable post-pandemic. One key requirement for service sustainability is confirming economic viability. To achieve this, we conducted a systematic review to examine the cost-effectiveness of telehealth in primary care. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify articles that conducted economic evaluations of telehealth services in primary care settings. Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and CINAHL databases were undertaken using keywords relating to telehealth, primary care, and economic or cost. Title, abstract and full-text reviews were conducted and data extraction of study characteristics, economic analysis, and description of service models was performed. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to evaluate study reporting quality. Results: Twenty articles were selected for final inclusion. Four studies employed six analysis types through a cost-consequence analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Five studies used a cost-minimisation analysis and eleven used a simple cost analysis. Telehealth service models included triage services, substitution services, other services, and new services. There was a widespread of reporting quality when studies were assessed again the CHEERS checklist. Most studies reported telehealth as cost-effective, although the quality of this evidence is dependent on study context, analysis type and service model delivered. Conclusions: In various circumstances, telehealth services in primary care are cost-effective. Services appear to be cost-effective when used in appropriate clinical scenarios, when clinician time efficiency is improved, and when overall health service utilisation is reduced. However, telehealth implementation should be motivated by potential overall benefits rather than cost reduction alone. Telehealth can facilitate multidisciplinary care and expand primary care services. Decision makers need to consider the societal benefits of telehealth implementation, as well as the economic benefits.