Virtual vs in-person otolaryngology evaluation: The patient perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patient responses to validated satisfaction surveys for in-person vs virtual otolaryngology ambulatory evaluation. METHODS: National Research Corporation (NRC) Health patient survey answers between April 2020 and February 2021 were divided into in-person and virtual visit modalities. Responses were compared with two group t-tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Relationships between visit modality by gender, age, race, and sub-specialty visit type and satisfaction scores were examined by testing interactions with separate ANOVA models. RESULTS: 1242 in-person and 216 virtual patient satisfaction survey responses were highly favorable for all themes (communication, comprehension of treatment plan, and likelihood of future referral) with both visit modalities. Higher satisfaction for in-person evaluation was seen with communication ("care providers listened" 3.68 (0.67)-on a scale of 1-no to 4-yes, definitely) vs 3.57 (0.78), p = 0.0426; "courtesy/respect" 3.75 (0.62) vs 3.66 (0.69), p = 0.0265)), and comprehension of treatment plan ("enough info about treatment" 3.53 (0.79) vs 3.37 (0.92), p = 0.0120; "know what to do" 3.62 (0.76) vs 3.46 (0.88), p = 0.0023)). No differences were detected for future referral of clinic or provider. There was no association between visit modality and patient sociodemographic factors or sub-specialty visit types. Main effects were observed with respect to race, gender, and sub-specialty visit type. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction scores for virtual visit evaluation were high and comparable to in-person evaluation, with a slight preference for in-person. Future studies are needed to identify which patients and conditions are particularly suited for virtual vs in-person delivery of otolaryngology services.

Additive Value of a Face-to-Face Visit to Virtual Remote Decision in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing high prevalence of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD) in the aging population combined with the need for frequent monitoring and treatment for many years, especially in the COVID-19 era, raises the need to establish an effective, reliable, and safe follow-up and treatment model. This study evaluates the difference in treatment decisions comparing between the gold standard face-to-face clinical examination and virtual evaluation approach based only on visual acuity (VA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans without clinical fundoscopic examination in nvAMD patients. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted that compared an original "face-to-face" visit treatment decision regarding the need for anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drug, interval, and treatment regimen based on routine VA, spectral domain OCT imaging, and dilated fundus examination to two "virtual" treatment decisions based on evaluation of OCT scans and previous medical records before and after revealing VA data on the same nvAMD patients eyes. RESULTS: About 169 eyes of 114 patients were included in the study. Forty-nine patients (43%) suffered from bilateral nvAMD and had both eyes included in the study. Agreement between the "face-to-face visit treatment decision" and "virtual treatment decision" was noted in 74.6% and 71.6% eyes before and after revealing the patient's VA in the study visit, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual evaluation results in similar treatment decisions for nvAMD patients compared to standard face-to-face clinical examination.

Feasibility and acceptance of a virtual multidisciplinary care programme for patients with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is one of the major public health concerns. The current lifestyle and advances in technology resulted in the development of a virtual mode of professional healthcare, which is an effective alternative method of management of patients. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of implementation of a virtual comprehensive care programme during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients' acceptance and the changes in self-care behaviours, metabolic parameters and emotional factors. METHODS: The programme employed in this study included nine health interventions in 1 day. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mode of interventions, including questionnaires, patient evaluations and a satisfaction survey, was modified to the virtual form in 2020. This study assessed the changes in self-care behaviours, metabolic parameters and emotional factors and compared the data pertaining to patients who received virtual healthcare in 2020 with those who received face-to-face modality of medical care in 2019. RESULTS: During June to November 2020, 130 patients received healthcare by means of the virtual modality. The change in modality of healthcare was feasible and 75% of the patients displayed good acceptance of the same. The evaluation of self-care behaviours included self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) levels, foot care and regular exercise. The duration of exercise decreased from 120 to 0 min/week (p < 0.001). However, there was no change in metabolic parameters. Regarding the mental health parameters, we observed an increase in the proportion of patients with anxiety (21.5% versus 11.1%), depressive symptoms (10.8% versus 4.3%), diabetes distress (18.5% versus 11.1%) and prescription of psychotropic drugs (32.8% versus 18.2%) (p < 0.05) in virtual versus face-to-face, respectively. CONCLUSION: The virtual comprehensive care programme for the management of patients with diabetes is a feasible approach that allows healthcare professionals to provide an adequate care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Computer workstation ergonomics: Current evidence for evaluation, corrections, and recommendations for remote evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature Review INTRODUCTION: Computer use in the workplace has increased substantially since the start of the information age in the mid-1980s through 2020. Desktops, laptops, and tablets are essential tools for communication and project management. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many workers have transitioned to work from home (WFH) to sustain public health emergency guidelines, and it is anticipated that many WFH jobs will be maintained post-pandemic. The transition to WFH occurred rapidly without time to establish ideal workstations. Ergonomic assessments that were typically performed in person needed to be performed using virtual technology. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this review is (1) to describe the components of a computer workstation evaluation; (2) to offer suggestions for identifying computer workstation problems that may be contributing to the client's musculoskeletal (MSK) pain and symptoms; (3) to provide suggestions that may improve the safety and comfort at the computer workstation, and (4) to suggest a method of completing the workstation analysis virtually, without onsite in-person evaluation. METHODS AND RESULTS: There is a paucity of peer-reviewed literature regarding computer workstation evaluations to be performed in person, let alone using a virtual method. The components of computer workstation evaluations have been recommended by regulatory agencies that survey injuries in the workplace. Prior to 2020, these evaluations were done in person at the office workstation. Modifications in data collection were needed to transition the analysis to a reliable virtual format. The remote method described provides a consistent approach that engages the client in the process.