Long covid and medical gaslighting: Dismissal, delayed diagnosis, and deferred treatment.

While we know a lot more about Long Covid today, patients who were infected with Covid-19 early on in the pandemic and developed Long Covid had to contend with medical professionals who lacked awareness of the potential for extended complications from Covid-19. Long Covid patients have responded by labeling their contentious interactions with medical professionals, organizations, and the broader medical system as "gaslighting." We argue that the charge of medical gaslighting can be understood as a form of ontological politics. Not only do patients demand that their version of reality be recognized, but they also blame the experts who hold gatekeeping power over their medical care for producing a distorted version of said reality. By analyzing results from an online survey of Long Covid patients active on social media in the United States (n â€‹= â€‹334), we find that experiences of contention and their reframing as "gaslighting" were common amongst our respondents. In short answer responses about their experience obtaining medical care for Long Covid, our respondents described encountering medical professionals who dismissed their experience, leading to lengthy diagnostic odysseys and lack of treatment options for Long Covid. Even though we are limited by characteristics of our sample, there is good reason to believe that these experiences and their contentious reframing as medical gaslighting are exacerbated by gender, class, and racial inequalities.

Patient Perspectives on the Digitization of Personal Health Information in the Emergency Department: Mixed Methods Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Although the digitization of personal health information (PHI) has been shown to improve patient engagement in the primary care setting, patient perspectives on its impact in the emergency department (ED) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to characterize the views of ED users in British Columbia, Canada, on the impacts of PHI digitization on ED care. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study consisting of an online survey followed by key informant interviews with a subset of survey respondents. ED users in British Columbia were asked about their ED experiences and attitudes toward PHI digitization in the ED. RESULTS: A total of 108 participants submitted survey responses between January and April 2020. Most survey respondents were interested in the use of electronic health records (79/105, 75%) and patient portals (91/107, 85%) in the ED and were amenable to sharing their ED PHI with ED staff (up to 90% in emergencies), family physicians (up to 91%), and family caregivers (up to 75%). In addition, 16 survey respondents provided key informant interviews in August 2020. Interviewees expected PHI digitization in the ED to enhance PHI access by health providers, patient-provider relationships, patient self-advocacy, and postdischarge care management, although some voiced concerns about patient privacy risk and limited access to digital technologies (eg, smart devices, internet connection). Many participants thought the COVID-19 pandemic could provide momentum for the digitization of health care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients overwhelmingly support PHI digitization in the form of electronic health records and patient portals in the ED. The COVID-19 pandemic may represent a critical moment for the development and implementation of these tools.

Marginalized patient identities and the patient-physician relationship in the cancer care context: a systematic scoping review.

PURPOSE: We sought to examine and categorize the current evidence on patient-physician relationships among marginalized patient populations within the context of cancer care using a systemic scoping review approach. METHODS: Web-based discovery services (e.g., Google Scholar) and discipline-specific databases (e.g., PubMed) were queried for articles on the patient-physician relationship among marginalized cancer patients. The marginalized populations of interest included (1) race and ethnicity, (2) gender, (3) sexual orientation and gender identity, (4) age, (5) disability, (6) socioeconomic status, and (7) geography (rural/urban). Study screening and data extraction were facilitated through the Covidence software platform. RESULTS: Of the 397 screened studies, 37 met study criteria-most articles utilized quantitative methodologies (n = 28). The majority of studies focused on racial and ethnic cancer disparities (n = 27) with breast cancer (n = 20) as the most common cancer site. Trust and satisfaction with the provider were the most prevalent issues cited in the patient-physician relationship. Differences in patient-physician communication practices and quality were also frequently discussed. Overall, studies highlighted the need for increased culturally congruent care among providers. CONCLUSION: Results from this review suggest marginalized cancer patients face significant barriers in establishing culturally and linguistically congruent patient-physician relationships. Future studies should focus on the intersectionality of multiple marginalized identities and optimization of the patient-physician relationship.

"Ask a Doctor About Coronavirus": How Physicians on Social Media Can Provide Valid Health Information During a Pandemic.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the information stream has overflowed with accurate information, misinformation, and constantly changing guidelines. There is a great need for guidance on the identification of trustworthy health information, and official channels are struggling to keep pace with this infodemic. Consequently, a Facebook group was created where volunteer medical physicians would answer laypeople's questions about the 2019 novel coronavirus. There is not much precedence in health care professional-driven Facebook groups, and the framework was thus developed continuously. We ended up with an approach without room for debate, which fostered a sense of calmness, trust, and safety among the questioners. Substantial moderator effort was needed to ensure high quality and consistency through collaboration among the presently >200 physicians participating in this group. At the time of writing, the group provides a much-needed service to >58,000 people in Denmark during this crisis.

Patient Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Use of Virtual Care.

Virtual care, the use of videoconferencing technology to connect with patients, has become critical in providing continuing care for patients during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual care has now been adopted by health care providers across the spectrum, including physicians, residents, nurse practitioners, nurses, and allied health care professionals. Virtual care is novel and nuanced compared to in-person care. Most of the health care providers who are delivering or expected to deliver virtual care have little to no prior experience with it. The nuances of virtual care involve regulatory standards, platforms, technology and troubleshooting, patient selection, etiquette, and workflow, all of which comprise critical points in the provision of health care. It is important to consistently deliver high-quality, equitable, and professional virtual care to inspire patients with the trust they need to continue follow-up of their care in these difficult times. We have been adopting virtual care in our clinical practice for over two years. In partnership with Canada Health Infoway, we have assembled a primer for virtual care that can serve as a guide for any health care provider in Canada and globally, with the goal of providing seamless transitions between in-person and virtual care.

Virtual Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond: A Call for Evaluation.

The interplay of virtual care and cancer care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is unique and unprecedented. Patients with cancer are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and have worse outcomes than patients with COVID-19 who do not have cancer. Virtual care has been introduced quickly and extemporaneously in cancer treatment centers worldwide to maintain COVID-19-free zones. The outbreak of COVID-19 in a cancer center could have devastating consequences. The virtual care intervention that was first used in our cancer center, as well as many others, was a landline telephone in an office or clinic that connected a clinician with a patient. There is a lack of virtual care evaluation from the perspectives of patients and oncology health care providers. A number of factors for assessing oncology care delivered through a virtual care intervention have been described, including patient rapport, frailty, delicate conversations, team-based care, resident education, patient safety, technical effectiveness, privacy, operational effectiveness, and resource utilization. These factors are organized according to the National Quality Forum framework for the assessment of telehealth in oncology. This includes the following 4 domains of assessing outcomes: experience, access to care, effectiveness, and financial impact or cost. In terms of virtual care and oncology, the pandemic has opened the door to change. The lessons learned during the initial period of the pandemic have given rise to opportunities for the evolution of long-term virtual care. The opportunity to evaluate and improve virtual care should be seized upon.

Contemporary ethical considerations in clinical otolaryngology.

The practice of otolaryngology has been significantly challenged by the constraints of the novel virus pandemic, but the specialty has continued to provide clinical care for patients in a manner consistent with ethical principles and moral leadership. Continued attention to maintaining the ethical foundations for appropriate informed consent, provision of remote health care through telemedicine, and strengthening the patient-physician relationship while role modeling the highest level of professionalism will continue to be challenging for the specialty throughout and beyond the pandemic temporal boundaries. These contemporary elements of ethical clinical care, examined in the context of disruption of the traditional practice of otolaryngology, are foundational to the duties and responsibilities inherent to the profession of medicine. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

The Impact of Video-Mediated Communication on Closed Wound Assessments in Postoperative Consultations: Conversation Analytical Study.

BACKGROUND: Research on the use of video-mediated technology for medical consultations is increasing rapidly. Most research in this area is based on questionnaires and focuses on long-term conditions. The few studies that have focused on physical examinations in video consultations indicated that it poses challenges for the participants. The specific activity of wound assessment through video in postsurgery consultations has not yet been studied. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of face-to-face and video settings on the moment-to-moment organization of such an activity is original. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of video technology on the procedure of postsurgery wound assessment and its limits. METHODS: We recorded 22 postoperative video consultations and 17 postoperative face-to-face consultations. The primary purpose of the consultation was to inform the patient about the final pathology results of the resected specimen, and the secondary purpose was to check on the patient's recovery, including an assessment of the closed wound. The recordings were transcribed in detail and analyzed using methods of conversation analysis. RESULTS: The way that an assessment of the wound is established in video consultations differs from the procedure in face-to-face consultations. In the consultation room, wound assessments overwhelmingly (n=15/17) involve wound showings in the context of surgeons reporting their observations formatted with evidentials ("looks neat") and subsequently assessing what these observations imply or what could be concluded from them. In contrast, wound assessments in video consultations do not tend to involve showing the wound (n=3/22) and, given the technological restrictions, do not involve palpation. Rather, the surgeon invites the patient to assess the wound, which opens up a sequence of patient and physician assessments where diagnostic criteria such as redness or swollenness are made explicit. In contrast to observations in regular consultations, these assessments are characterized by epistemic markers of uncertainty ("I think," "sounds...good") and evidentials are absent. Even in cases of a potential wound problem, the surgeon may rely on questioning the patient rather than requesting a showing. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of video technology on postoperative consultations is that a conclusive wound assessment is arrived at in a different way when compared to face-to-face consultations. In video consultations, physicians enquire and patients provide their own observations, which serve as the basis for the assessment. This means that, in video consultations, patients have a fundamentally different role. These talking-based assessments are effective unless, in cases of a potential problem, patient answers seem insufficient and a showing might be beneficial.