Risk of Admission to the Emergency Room/Inpatient Service After a Neurology Telemedicine Visit During COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: We compared emergency department (ED) and overnight inpatient admission (admission) rates within eight weeks of home-based telemedicine visits during COVID-19 in 2020 with in-person visits (conventional visit) in 2019. This was a quality improvement project prompted by an adverse event after a telemedicine visit. METHODS: We reviewed all completed telemedicine and conventional visits from March 26 to June 1 of 2020 and 2019 to identify patients who required an ED visit or hospital admission within eight weeks after the visit. RESULTS: In 2020, the overall rate of ED visits of hospital admission within eight weeks of a neurology visit was less than 5%. Comparing 2020 with 2019: (1) cohorts were similar for age, payor, state of residence, medical complexity, recommendation for close follow-up, new medications, or new tests ordered; (2) it took longer to present to the ED (by 10 days) or to be hospitalized (by three days); (3) planned admissions were approximately 50% lower; (4) on multivariate analysis, risk factors for any ED/admission included a patient call within seven days before the ED/admission (P = 0.0004) or being seen by an epilepsy specialist (P = 0.02); (5) a presenting complaint of worsening symptoms had a lower odds ratio of subsequent ED visit/admission (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine is safe, with a similar likelihood of ED or hospital admission during the pandemic in 2020 versus before the pandemic in 2019. In 2020, even if patients described worse symptoms at the time of their clinic visit, the odds of ED or hospital admission were lower than in 2019, but those who called after the telemedicine visit were more likely to be seen in ED or require hospitalization.

Education Research: Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on neurology trainees in Italy: A resident-driven survey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak on neurology resident training in Italy. METHOD: We created a web-based survey regarding changes in clinical, research, and educational activity of neurology trainees in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic and the preventive measures undertaken by local institutions to reduce the risk of contagion. RESULTS: Seventy-nine residents working in Italy completed the survey. A total of 87.3% of trainees reported a substantial reduction in their neurologic duties since COVID-19 appeared in Italy, and 17.8% were also recruited or volunteered for COVID-19-dedicated wards. Likewise, more than 60% of trainees experienced a reduction or interruption in research activity. As regards the perceived effect of the COVID-19 outbreak on their neurologic training, almost 70% of surveyed trainees believe that the COVID-19 pandemic had or will have a negative effect on their formation as neurologists, for different reasons. Furthermore, trainees reported a consistent exposure (69.6%) to confirmed positive COVID-19 cases at work, with divergent surveillance and preventive measures taken by local institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the survey shows that the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy has had a subjective negative effect on neurology residents on didactics, clinical, and research training as well as training abroad. The COVID-19 outbreak poses many challenges to academic institutions and training programs, and addressing these issues promptly is crucial to ensure continued quality of trainees' neurologic education. Sharing solutions and ideas among the international neurologic community might help neurology training programs worldwide to better counteract these problems.

Trends in academic productivity in the COVID-19 era: analysis of neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional literature.

BACKGROUND: Academic physicians aim to provide clinical and surgical care to their patients while actively contributing to a growing body of scientific literature. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in procedural-based specialties across the United States witnessing a sharp decline in their clinical volume and surgical cases. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of COVID-19 on neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional academic productivity. METHODS: The study compared the neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional academic output during the pandemic lockdown with the same time period in previous years. Editors from a sample of neurosurgical, stroke neurology, and neurointerventional journals provided the total number of original manuscript submissions, broken down by months, from the year 2016 to 2020. Manuscript submission was used as a surrogate metric for academic productivity. RESULTS: 8 journals were represented. The aggregated data from all eight journals as a whole showed that a combined average increase of 42.3% was observed on original submissions for 2020. As the average yearly percent increase using the 2016-2019 data for each journal exhibited a combined average increase of 11.2%, the rise in the yearly increase for 2020 in comparison was nearly fourfold. For the same journals in the same time period, the average percent of COVID-19 related publications from January to June of 2020 was 6.87%. CONCLUSION: There was a momentous increase in the number of original submissions for the year 2020, and its effects were uniformly experienced across all of our represented journals.

Analyzing 2,589 child neurology telehealth encounters necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the rapid implementation of child neurology telehealth outpatient care with the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in March 2020. METHODS: This was a cohort study with retrospective comparison of 14,780 in-person encounters and 2,589 telehealth encounters, including 2,093 audio-video telemedicine and 496 scheduled telephone encounters, between October 1, 2019 and April 24, 2020. We compared in-person and telehealth encounters for patient demographics and diagnoses. For audio-video telemedicine encounters, we analyzed questionnaire responses addressing provider experience, follow-up plans, technical quality, need for in-person assessment, and parent/caregiver satisfaction. We performed manual reviews of encounters flagged as concerning by providers. RESULTS: There were no differences in patient age and major ICD-10 codes before and after transition. Clinicians considered telemedicine satisfactory in 93% (1,200 of 1,286) of encounters and suggested telemedicine as a component for follow-up care in 89% (1,144 of 1,286) of encounters. Technical challenges were reported in 40% (519 of 1,314) of encounters. In-person assessment was considered warranted after 5% (65 of 1,285) of encounters. Patients/caregivers indicated interest in telemedicine for future care in 86% (187 of 217) of encounters. Participation in telemedicine encounters compared to telephone encounters was less frequent among patients in racial or ethnic minority groups. CONCLUSIONS: We effectively converted most of our outpatient care to telehealth encounters, including mostly audio-video telemedicine encounters. Providers rated the vast majority of telemedicine encounters to be satisfactory, and only a small proportion of encounters required short-term in-person follow-up. These findings suggest that telemedicine is feasible and effective for a large proportion of child neurology care. Additional strategies are needed to ensure equitable telemedicine use.