Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 49
Filter
1.
Public Health Rep ; 137(2): 362-369, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1724141

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Testing remains critical for identifying pediatric cases of COVID-19 and as a public health intervention to contain infections. We surveyed US parents to measure the proportion of children tested for COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, preferred testing venues for children, and acceptability of school-based COVID-19 testing. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 2074 US parents of children aged ≤12 years in March 2021. We applied survey weights to generate national estimates, and we used Rao-Scott adjusted Pearson χ2 tests to compare incidence by selected sociodemographic characteristics. We used Poisson regression models with robust SEs to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) of pediatric testing. RESULTS: Among US parents, 35.9% reported their youngest child had ever been tested for COVID-19. Parents who were female versus male (aRR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79), Asian versus non-Hispanic White (aRR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87), and from the Midwest versus the Northeast (aRR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91) were less likely to report testing of a child. Children who had health insurance versus no health insurance (aRR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.81), were attending in-person school/daycare versus not attending (aRR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.43-1.95), and were from households with annual household income ≥$100 000 versus income <$50 000-$99 999 (aRR = 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40) were more likely to have tested for COVID-19. Half of parents (52.7%) reported the pediatrician's office as the most preferred testing venue, and 50.6% said they would allow their youngest child to be tested for COVID-19 at school/daycare if required. CONCLUSIONS: Greater efforts are needed to ensure access to COVID-19 testing for US children, including those without health insurance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , Parents/psychology , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Adult , Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Physicians' Offices/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Schools/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States
2.
Arch Dis Child ; 107(3): e14, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1691374

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and impact of having paediatric clinicians working in the Clinical Assessment Services (CAS) within NHS 111, a national telephone advice service. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Six NHS 111 providers across England with CAS where volunteer paediatric clinicians (doctors and advanced nurse practitioners (ANPs)) worked between May and December 2020. A data reporting framework was used to compare the outcomes of calls taken by paediatric vs non-paediatric clinicians. PATIENTS: Under 16-year-olds prompting calls to NHS 111 over the study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The disposition (final outcome of calls) taken by paediatric versus non-paediatric clinicians, paediatric clinicians' and patient experience. RESULTS: 70 paediatric clinicians (66 doctors and 4 ANPs) worked flexible shifts in six NHS 111 providers' CAS over the study period: 2535 calls for under 16-year-olds were taken by paediatric clinicians and 137 008 by non-paediatric clinicians. Overall, disposition rates differed significantly between the calls taken by paediatric versus (vs) non-paediatric clinicians: 69% vs 43% were advised on self-care only, 13% vs 18% to attend emergency departments (EDs), 13% vs 29% to attend primary care, 1% vs 4% to receive an urgent ambulance call out and 4% vs 6% referred to another health service, respectively. When compared with recent (all age) national whole data sets, the feedback from calls taken by paediatricians noted a greater proportion of patients/carers reporting that their problem was fully resolved (92% vs 27%). CONCLUSIONS: Introducing paediatric specialists into NHS 111 CAS is likely to increase self-care dispositions, and reduce onward referrals to primary care, ED and ambulances. Future work will evaluate the impact of a national paediatric clinical assessment service to which specific case types are streamed.


Subject(s)
Health Personnel , Pediatrics/methods , Remote Consultation/methods , Telephone , Adolescent , Ambulances/statistics & numerical data , Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , England , Humans , Physicians , Pilot Projects , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , State Medicine , Surveys and Questionnaires , Triage/methods
3.
Rev Bras Enferm ; 74(suppl 1): e20201080, 2021.
Article in English, Portuguese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1626609

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: to describe the experience of a private outpatient network for hematology and oncology treatment in the adoption of management tools to face the risk of contamination by SARS-CoV-2. METHOD: an experience report on the use of a root cause analysis method to identify potential risks of contamination by COVID-19 among patients and employees. Through the risks identified through the Ishikawa Diagram, we built an action plan, linked to the 5W2H tool, for planning and decision-making implemented. RESULTS: the number of attendances in person and people circulating in the units was reduced, protective distance measures and new protection barriers were fundamental to control the risks of spreading COVID-19 in patients and employees. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: the management tools served as a valuable tool in the construction of measures, making the measures in question more clearly and applicable.


Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/psychology , Medical Oncology/methods , Occupational Health , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(51): e28461, 2021 Dec 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1594863

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has not only changed the lives of people around the world but also affected all areas of the healthcare system, including sleep medicine. However, no studies in Korea have investigated the status of domestic sleep centers and their challenges during the pandemic.An online survey was performed from December 2020 to January 2021. Hospitals that belonged to sleep-related academic societies and were considered well managed were included in this survey. The questionnaire focused on changes in sleep center operations, infection control policies, and patient treatment since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine and future directions for sleep medicine services were also investigated.Of the 20 sleep centers that responded, 80% were at university hospitals with more than 500 inpatient beds. During the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea (November-December 2020), the routine operating schedule of the sleep study room was reduced in 30% of the sleep centers compared to November-December 2019 (before COVID-19). The number of type 1 polysomnographies performed decreased in 85% of the sleep centers. In contrast, in-lab positive airway pressure (PAP) titrations decreased in 40%, remained unchanged in 35%, and increased in 25%. With respect to prescriptions, 30% of the sleep centers increased the number of prescriptions for auto-titrating continuous PAP. However, 60% of the sleep centers reported no change in the rate of fixed continuous PAP and auto-titrating continuous PAP prescriptions. All sleep centers that participated in this survey agreed that the need for documented infection control regulations will continue after the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the beginning of the pandemic, 30% of the centers have tried telemedicine. However, respondents expressed concern about telemedicine, citing a number of practical issues.Compared to countries where the COVID-19 pandemic was severe, Korea had less impact of COVID-19 on the sleep center operations and sleep apnea treatment. Infection and quality control in the sleep study room are important and inevitable issues, and regulation within each institution is necessary. Further research and discussion are needed regarding telemedicine and home sleep apnea test in Korea.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Sleep Apnea Syndromes , Telemedicine , Humans , Pandemics , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Sleep , Sleep Apnea Syndromes/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
6.
Clin Pediatr (Phila) ; 61(2): 184-187, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1551123

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to characterize the clinical presentation and outcomes of children and adolescents testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the ambulatory setting. We found that about 8% of children tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with the large majority being symptomatic (80%). The average age of our population was 12.5 years, and females and males were affected equally. However, African American patients (62%) were substantially more likely to test positive compared with other races. Children in this study tended to have a mild course, mostly presenting with respiratory symptoms, and very few required hospitalization. As the epidemiology of the pandemic evolves, it will be important to monitor the effects that changing variants have on infected children and the impact that vaccination programs have on mitigating infection risk.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , Adolescent , Ambulatory Care Facilities/organization & administration , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Maryland/epidemiology , Young Adult
7.
JAMA Intern Med ; 182(1): 42-49, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1527389

ABSTRACT

Importance: Systemic corticosteroids are commonly used in treating severe COVID-19. However, the role of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate disease is less clear. Objective: To determine the efficacy of the inhaled steroid ciclesonide in reducing the time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms among nonhospitalized participants with symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted at 10 centers throughout the US and assessed the safety and efficacy of a ciclesonide metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for treating nonhospitalized participants with symptomatic COVID-19 infection who were screened from June 11, 2020, to November 3, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ciclesonide MDI, 160 µg per actuation, for a total of 2 actuations twice a day (total daily dose, 640 µg) or placebo for 30 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chills, feeling feverish, repeated shaking with chills, muscle pain, headache, sore throat, and new loss of taste or smell) by day 30. Secondary end points included subsequent emergency department visits or hospital admissions for reasons attributable to COVID-19. Results: A total of 413 participants were screened and 400 (96.9%) were enrolled and randomized (197 [49.3%] in the ciclesonide arm and 203 [50.7%] in the placebo arm; mean [SD] age, 43.3 [16.9] years; 221 [55.3%] female; 2 [0.5%] Asian, 47 [11.8%] Black or African American, 3 [0.8%] Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 345 [86.3%] White, and 1 multiracial individuals [0.3%]; 172 Hispanic or Latino individuals [43.0%]). The median time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms was 19.0 days (95% CI, 14.0-21.0) in the ciclesonide arm and 19.0 days (95% CI, 16.0-23.0) in the placebo arm. There was no difference in resolution of all symptoms by day 30 (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.84-1.97). Participants who were treated with ciclesonide had fewer subsequent emergency department visits or hospital admissions for reasons related to COVID-19 (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.85). No participants died during the study. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that ciclesonide did not achieve the primary efficacy end point of reduced time to alleviation of all COVID-19-related symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04377711.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Pregnenediones/standards , Administration, Inhalation , Adolescent , Adult , Ambulatory Care Facilities/organization & administration , Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Ambulatory Care Facilities/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Glucocorticoids/standards , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Male , Metered Dose Inhalers , Middle Aged , Outpatients/statistics & numerical data , Pregnenediones/therapeutic use
8.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(42): e295, 2021 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1497009

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To minimize nosocomial infection against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), most hospitals conduct a prescreening process to evaluate the patient or guardian of any symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 or exposure to a COVID-19 patient at entrances of hospital buildings. In our hospital, we have implemented a two-level prescreening process in the outpatient clinic: an initial prescreening process at the entrance of the outpatient clinic (PPEO) and a second prescreening process is repeated in each department. If any symptoms or epidemiological history are identified at the second level, an emergency code is announced through the hospital's address system. The patient is then guided outside through a designated aisle. In this study, we analyze the cases missed in the PPEO that caused the emergency code to be applied. METHODS: All cases reported from March 2020 to April 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. We calculated the incidence of cases missed by the PPEO per 1,000 outpatients and compared the incidence between first-time hospital visitors and those visiting for the second time or more; morning and afternoon office hours; and days of the week. RESULTS: During the study period, the emergency code was applied to 449 cases missed by the PPEO. Among those cases, 20.7% were reported in otorhinolaryngology, followed by 11.6% in gastroenterology, 5.8% in urology, and 5.8% in dermatology. Fever was the most common symptom (59.9%), followed by cough (19.8%). The incidence of cases per 1,000 outpatients was significantly higher among first-time visitors than among those visiting for the second time or more (1.77 [confidence interval (CI), 1.44-2.10] vs. 0.59 [CI, 0.52-0.65], respectively) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Fever was the most common symptom missed by the PPEO, and otorhinolaryngology and gastroenterology most frequently reported missed cases. Cases missed by the PPEO were more likely to occur among first-time visitors than returning visitors. The results obtained from this study can provide insights or recommendations to other healthcare facilities in operating prescreening processes during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cough/etiology , Fever/etiology , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Ambulatory Care , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Female , Humans , Incidence , Infection Control , Male , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Young Adult
9.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(37): 1291-1293, 2021 09 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1441399

ABSTRACT

Data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) since the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, became the predominant circulating strain in the United States are limited (1-3). CDC used the VISION Network* to examine medical encounters (32,867) from 187 hospitals and 221 emergency departments (EDs) and urgent care (UC) clinics across nine states during June-August 2021, beginning on the date the Delta variant accounted for >50% of sequenced isolates in each medical facility's state. VISION Network methods have been published (4).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Middle Aged , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
10.
Clin Pediatr (Phila) ; 61(1): 26-33, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1405264

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic brought rapid expansion of pediatric telehealth to maintain patient access to care while decreasing COVID-19 community spread. We designed a retrospective, serial, cross-sectional study to investigate if telehealth implementation at an academic pediatric practice led to disparities in health care access. Significant differences were found in pre-COVID-19 versus during COVID-19 patient demographics. Patients seen during COVID-19 were more likely to be younger, White/Caucasian or Asian, English speaking, and have private insurance. They were less likely to be Black/African American or Latinx and request interpreters. Age was the only significant difference in patient demographics between in-person and telehealth visits during COVID-19. A multivariate regression showed older age as a significant positive predictor of having a video visit and public insurance as a significant negative predictor. Our study demonstrates telehealth disparities based on insurance existed at our clinic as did inequities in who was seen before versus during COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine/standards , Urban Population/statistics & numerical data , Ambulatory Care Facilities/organization & administration , Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/prevention & control , California , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Primary Health Care/methods , Primary Health Care/standards , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Telemedicine/methods , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data
12.
S Afr Med J ; 111(8): 720-723, 2021 Jun 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1355170

ABSTRACT

Herbal medicines made from the bark of the Cinchona tree, and later quinine, have been widely used for centuries to treat medical conditions such as tropical malaria. More recently, chloroquine (CQ) and its synthetic derivatives have been used as antimalarials and to treat systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and in the past 14 months or so, COVID-19 pneumonia. Anecdotal evidence and the erratic covering through social media of its potential efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia have resulted in the widespread off-label use of CQ in South Africa and worldwide. This study aimed to show that access to CQ as a chronic medication for rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases was limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this resulted in an increased incidence of flares in these patients, affecting their morbidity and potentially leading to mortality.


Subject(s)
Chloroquine/pharmacology , Rheumatology/standards , Ambulatory Care Facilities/organization & administration , Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Antirheumatic Agents/pharmacology , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Chloroquine/therapeutic use , Humans , Musculoskeletal Diseases/drug therapy , Rheumatic Diseases/drug therapy , Rheumatology/methods , Rheumatology/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
13.
Med J Aust ; 215(5): 217-221, 2021 09 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1355152

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To examine the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of SARS-CoV-2-positive children in Australia during 2020. DESIGN, SETTING: Multicentre retrospective study in 16 hospitals of the Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) network; eleven in Victoria, five in four other Australian states. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 0-17 years who presented to hospital-based COVID-19 testing clinics, hospital wards, or emergency departments during 1 February - 30 September 2020 and who were positive for SARS-CoV-2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of children positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: A total of 393 SARS-CoV-2-positive children (181 girls, 46%) presented to the participating hospitals (426 presentations, including 131 to emergency departments [31%]), the first on 3 February 2020. Thirty-three children presented more than once (8%), including two who were transferred to participating tertiary centres (0.5%). The median age of the children was 5.3 years (IQR, 1.9-12.0 years; range, 10 days to 17.9 years). Hospital admissions followed 51 of 426 presentations (12%; 44 children), including 17 patients who were managed remotely by hospital in the home. Only 16 of the 426 presentations led to hospital medical interventions (4%). Two children (0.5%) were diagnosed with the paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS). CONCLUSION: The clinical course for most SARS-CoV-2-positive children who presented to Australian hospitals was mild, and did not require medical intervention.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/diagnosis , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/epidemiology , Adolescent , Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Australia , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Retrospective Studies , Symptom Assessment
15.
PLoS One ; 16(7): e0254990, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1319522

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify clinical risk factors for COVID-19 in a German outpatient fever clinic that allow distinction of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients from other patients with flu-like symptoms. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-centre cohort study. Patients were included visiting the fever clinic from 4th of April 2020 to 15th of May 2020. Symptoms, comorbidities, and socio-demographic factors were recorded in a standardized fashion. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors of COVID-19, on the bases of those a model discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver operation curves (AUROC). RESULTS: The final analysis included 930 patients, of which 74 (8%) had COVID-19. Anosmia (OR 10.71; CI 6.07-18.9) and ageusia (OR 9.3; CI 5.36-16.12) were strongly associated with COVID-19. High-risk exposure (OR 12.20; CI 6.80-21.90), especially in the same household (OR 4.14; CI 1.28-13.33), was also correlated; the more household members, especially with flu-like symptoms, the higher the risk of COVID-19. Working in an essential workplace was also associated with COVID-19 (OR 2.35; CI 1.40-3.96), whereas smoking was inversely correlated (OR 0.19; CI 0.08-0.44). A model that considered risk factors like anosmia, ageusia, concomitant of symptomatic household members and smoking well discriminated COVID-19 patients from other patients with flu-like symptoms (AUROC 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: We report a set of four readily available clinical parameters that allow the identification of high-risk individuals of COVID-19. Our study will not replace molecular testing but will help guide containment efforts while waiting for test results.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/complications , Fever/complications , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Statistical , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment
16.
J Health Care Poor Underserved ; 32(2): 948-957, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1268207

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered the landscape of health care delivery, prompting a rapid, widespread adoption of telehealth in primary care practices. Using a pooled sample of 1,344 primary care clinics in Texas, we examined the adoption of telehealth in Texas during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, by comparing medically underserved area (MUA) clinics and non-medically underserved area (non-MUA) clinics. Our analysis suggests that compared with MUA clinics, clinics in non-MUAs were more likely to conduct a majority of their visits via telehealth before May 1st, 2020. However, later surveys indicated that differences in telehealth use between MUA and non-MUA clinics lessened, suggesting that some of the barriers that MUA clinics initially faced might have resolved over time. This research provides an additional perspective in discussions about telehealth adoption on a widespread, permanent basis in Texas and the U.S.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Healthcare Disparities , Primary Health Care , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Medically Underserved Area , Pandemics , Texas/epidemiology
17.
Diabetes Metab Syndr ; 15(4): 102175, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1267654

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to assess patient perception toward the rapid implementation of virtual phone clinics among Saudi adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This cross-sectional, web-based study included Saudi adult patients with T1DM who attended at least one virtual phone visit with the diabetes clinic at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between August 1 and December 31, 2020. Patients anonymously answered a Google form-created Arabic questionnaire. Information about patient characteristics, outcome, and perception of the virtual phone visit were obtained. Data were presented using descriptive statistics, chi-square, one-way ANOVA, independent t-, and Welch's t-tests. RESULTS: The questionnaire was sent to 281 patients, of whom 201 completed it. 59.2% patients were satisfied with their overall virtual phone clinic experience, and 75.6% preferred to continue attending the virtual phone clinics in the future. The average perception value of patients toward virtual phone clinics was 67.76 ± 19.9, suggesting good perception among the majority. Negative or neutral views of current health, asking to be physically seen, and missing a virtual appointment were associated with significantly lower average patient perception value (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most Saudi patients with T1DM have adapted to virtual phone consultations, exhibiting good satisfaction and perception, and high preference to continue using this system in the future. The utilization of the service to assist patients with diabetes is highly encouraged, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Strategies need to be developed to further enhance the patient experience.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/complications , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/prevention & control , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Remote Consultation/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/psychology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/virology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Perception , Referral and Consultation , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
19.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol ; 31(1): 105-109, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1064508

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 11 March 2020. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic practice and training in the UK. METHODS: Surgeons throughout UK hospitals were asked to complete an electronic survey relating to orthopaedic practice and training in their hospital. The nationwide survey was conducted during the first peak of COVID-19 cases in the UK between 20 March 2020 and 20 April 2020. RESULTS: All 202 UK participants reported disruption to their daily practice. 91% reported all elective operating had been cancelled and trauma continued as normal in only 24% of cases. 70% reported disruption to trauma operating. Elective clinic capacity significantly reduced with no elective clinics running as normal. 55% reported their elective clinics completely cancelled, whilst 38% reported elective clinics running at a reduced capacity, with non-urgent appointments postponed. Only 9% of fracture clinics ran as normal, and 69% had a reduced service. 67% reported teaching and study leave cancelled. Significantly, 69% of participants felt the pandemic would result in a delay to completion of registrar training programmes. CONCLUSION: This is the first nationwide survey assessing the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 on UK orthopaedic practice and training, during the peak of the pandemic. It highlights the scale of the challenge ahead for the specialty, including during the recovery phase and post-recovery phase of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Orthopedic Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Orthopedics/education , Pandemics , Ambulatory Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL