Adopting a multidisciplinary telemedicine intervention for fall prevention in Parkinson's disease. Protocol for a longitudinal, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40-70% of people with Parkinson's disease (PD) fall each year, causing decreased activity levels and quality of life. Current fall-prevention strategies include the use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies. To increase the accessibility of this vulnerable population, we developed a multidisciplinary telemedicine program using an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) platform. We hypothesized that the risk for falling in PD would decrease among participants receiving a multidisciplinary telemedicine intervention program added to standard office-based neurological care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary telemedicine intervention to decrease the incidence of falls in patients with PD. METHODS: Ongoing, longitudinal, randomized, single-blinded, case-control, clinical trial. We will include 76 non-demented patients with idiopathic PD with a high risk of falling and limited access to multidisciplinary care. The intervention group (n = 38) will receive multidisciplinary remote care in addition to standard medical care, and the control group (n = 38) standard medical care only. Nutrition, sarcopenia and frailty status, motor, non-motor symptoms, health-related quality of life, caregiver burden, falls, balance and gait disturbances, direct and non-medical costs will be assessed using validated rating scales. RESULTS: This study will provide a cost-effectiveness assessment of multidisciplinary telemedicine intervention for fall reduction in PD, in addition to standard neurological medical care. CONCLUSION: In this challenging initiative, we will determine whether a multidisciplinary telemedicine intervention program can reduce falls, as an alternative intervention option for PD patients with restricted access to multidisciplinary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04694443.

Attitudes and Perceptions of Multidisciplinary Cancer Care Clinicians Toward Telehealth and Secure Messages.

Importance: Telehealth use including secure messages has rapidly expanded since the COVID-19 pandemic, including for multidisciplinary aspects of cancer care. Recent reports described rapid uptake and various benefits for patients and clinicians, suggesting that telehealth may be in standard use after the pandemic. Objective: To examine attitudes and perceptions of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians toward telehealth and secure messages. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional specialty-specific survey (ie, some questions appear only for relevant specialties) among multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians, collected from April 29, 2020, to June 5, 2020. Participants were all 285 clinicians in the fields of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, survivorship, and oncology navigation from all 21 community cancer centers of Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician satisfaction, perceived benefits and challenges of telehealth, perceived quality of telehealth and secure messaging, preferred visit and communication types for different clinical activities, and preferences regarding postpandemic telehealth use. Results: A total of 202 clinicians (71%) responded (104 of 128 medical oncologists, 34 of 37 radiation oncologists, 16 of 62 breast surgeons, 18 of 28 navigators, and 30 of 30 survivorship experts; 57% (116 of 202) were women; 73% [147 of 202] between ages 36-55 years). Seventy-six percent (n = 154) were satisfied with telehealth without statistically significant variations based on clinician characteristics. In-person visits were thought to promote a strong patient-clinician connection by 99% (n = 137) of respondents compared with 77% (n = 106) for video visits, 43% (n = 59) for telephone, and 14% (n = 19) for secure messages. The most commonly cited benefits of telehealth to clinicians included reduced commute (79%; n = 160), working from home (74%; n = 149), and staying on time (65%; n = 132); the most commonly cited negative factors included internet connection (84%; n = 170) or equipment problems (72%; n = 146), or physical examination needed (64%; n = 131). Most respondents (59%; n = 120) thought that video is adequate to manage the greater part of patient care in general; and most deemed various telehealth modalities suitable for any of the queried types of patient-clinician activities. For some specific activities, less than half of respondents thought that only an in-person visit is acceptable (eg, 49%; n = 66 for end-of-life discussion, 35%; n = 58 for new diagnosis). Most clinicians (82%; n = 166) preferred to maintain or increase use of telehealth after the pandemic. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey of multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians in the COVID-19 era, telehealth was well received and often preferred by most cancer care clinicians, who deemed it appropriate to manage most aspects of cancer care. As telehealth use becomes routine in some cancer care settings, video and telephone visits and use of asynchronous secure messaging with patients in cancer care has clear potential to extend beyond the pandemic period.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Impacts Burnout Syndrome Differently Among Multiprofessional Critical Care Clinicians-A Longitudinal Survey Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on burnout syndrome in the multiprofessional ICU team and to identify factors associated with burnout syndrome. DESIGN: Longitudinal, cross-sectional survey. SETTING: All adult ICUs within an academic health system. SUBJECTS: Critical care nurses, advanced practice providers, physicians, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, social workers, and spiritual health workers were surveyed on burnout in 2017 and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Burnout syndrome and contributing factors were measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory of Health and Human Service and Areas of Worklife Survey. Response rates were 46.5% (572 respondents) in 2017 and 49.9% (710 respondents) in 2020. The prevalence of burnout increased from 59% to 69% (p < 0.001). Nurses were disproportionately impacted, with the highest increase during the pandemic (58-72%; p < 0.0001) with increases in emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and personal achievement decreases. In contrast, although burnout was high before and during coronavirus disease 2019 in all specialties, most professions had similar or lower burnout in 2020 as they had in 2017. Physicians had the lowest rates of burnout, measured at 51% and 58%, respectively. There was no difference in burnout between clinicians working in ICUs who treated coronavirus disease 2019 than those who did not (71% vs 67%; p = 0.26). Burnout significantly increased in females (71% vs 60%; p = 0.001) and was higher than in males during the pandemic (71% vs 60%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Burnout syndrome was common in all multiprofessional ICU team members prior to and increased substantially during the pandemic, independent of whether one treated coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Nurses had the highest prevalence of burnout during coronavirus disease 2019 and had the highest increase in burnout from the prepandemic baseline. Female clinicians were significantly more impacted by burnout than males. Different susceptibility to burnout syndrome may require profession-specific interventions as well as work system improvements.

Consensus disease definitions for neurologic immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%-12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

Impact of the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic on a tertiary referral centre for kidney cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a centralized specialist kidney cancer care pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient and pathway characteristics including prioritization strategies at the Specialist Centre for Kidney Cancer located at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (RFH) before and during the surge of COVID-19. RESULTS: On 18 March 2020 all elective surgery was halted at RFH to redeploy resources and staff for the COVID-19 surge. Prioritizing of patients according to European Association of Urology guidance was introduced. Clinics and the specialist multidisciplinary team (SMDT) meetings were maintained with physical distancing, kidney surgery was moved to a COVID-protected site, and infection prevention measurements were enforced. During the 7 weeks of lockdown (23 March to 10 May 2020), 234 cases were discussed at the SMDT meetings, 53% compared to the 446 cases discussed in the 7 weeks pre-lockdown. The reduction in referrals was more pronounced for small and asymptomatic renal masses. Of 62 low-priority cancer patients, 27 (43.5%) were deferred. Only one (4%) COVID-19 infection occurred postoperatively, and the patient made a full recovery. No increase in clinical or pathological upstaging could be detected in patients who underwent deferred surgery compared to pre-COVID practice. CONCLUSION: The first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted diagnosis, referral and treatment of kidney cancer at a tertiary referral centre. With a policy of prioritization and COVID-protected pathways, capacity for time-sensitive oncological interventions was maintained and no immediate clinical harm was observed.

Interprofessional primary care during COVID-19: a survey of the provider perspective.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional primary care (IPC) teams provide comprehensive and coordinated care and are ideally equipped to support those populations most at risk of adverse health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic, including older adults, and patients with chronic physical and mental health conditions. There has been little focus on the experiences of healthcare teams and no studies have examined IPC practice during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of the study was to describe the state of interprofessional health provider practice within IPC teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Observational cross-sectional design. A web-based survey was deployed to IPC providers working in team-based primary care clinics in the province of Ontario, Canada. The survey included 26 close-ended and six open-ended questions. Close-ended questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Content analysis was used to analyze the open-ended questions. RESULTS: 445 surveys were included in the final analysis. Service delivery shifted from in-person care (77% pre-COVID-19) to telephone (76.5% during the COVID-19 pandemic). Less than half of the respondents (40%) reported receiving any training for virtual delivery. Wait times to access team members were reported to have decreased. There has also been a shift in what IPC providers report as the most commonly seen conditions, with increases in visits related to mental health concerns, acute infections (including COVID-19), social isolation, and resource navigation. Respondents also reported a reduction in healthcare provision for multiple chronic conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: IPC teams are rapidly shifting their practice to supporting their patients during the pandemic. A surge in mental health issues has been seen and is expected to continue to increase in response to COVID-19. Understanding early experiences can help plan for future pandemic waves.

Healthcare Waste Status and Handling Practices during COVID-19 Pandemic in Tepi General Hospital, Ethiopia.

Background: Mismanagement of healthcare waste (HCW) during the COVID-19 pandemic can facilitate the transmission of coronavirus. Regarding this problem, there is gap of evidence in Ethiopia, and this study aimed to assess the HCW generation rate and management in Tepi General Hospital, southwest Ethiopia. Methods: Institution-based cross-sectional and case studies were conducted. The total amount of waste generated and its type among various case teams were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r) was used to assess the correlation between the total numbers of patients and the total amount of HCW generated. Qualitative data were transcribed verbatim, translated to English, and analyzed with Open Code version 4.02 software, and content analysis was followed. Results: The total mean weight (±SD) of waste generation rate in all service units of the hospital was 492.5 ± 11.5 kg/day. The higher proportion (61.9%) of the total HCW produced was general waste and the remaining (38.1%) was hazardous waste. There was a statistically significant (X 2 = 82.1, p < 0.001) difference in daily HCW generation rate among different case teams. Similarly, the hospital waste generation amount and total patient flow had a strong positive linear relationship (r = 0.7, p=0.032). COVID-19-related medical wastes were not properly handled, segregated, stored, and disposed. There was a scarcity of resources needed to manage HCW, and available resources were utilized poorly. Overall, healthcare wastes were managed as usual (pre-COVID-19). Conclusion: The mean HCW generation rate in Tepi General Hospital was high. Overall, wastes were mismanaged, and COVID-19-related HCWs have been managed as usual. Availing of important resources and training the concerned bodies should be considered during the crisis of COVID-19.

Videoconferencing for multidisciplinary team meetings in the coronavirus disease era - human factors awareness and recognition.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to the birth of videoconference multidisciplinary teams, which are now commonplace. This remote way of deciding care demands a new set of rules to ensure the quality of the complex decisions that are made for the patient group needing multidisciplinary care. Videoconference multidisciplinary teams bring with them novel forms of distraction that are under-appreciated and can impair decision-making. METHOD: A practical checklist was generated as applied to videoconference multidisciplinary teams using the principles of human factors awareness and recognition. RESULTS: Some of the strategies that should be adopted to minimise errors arising from human factors are: information technology support, a suitable environment to dial in, a global checklist employed prior to the videoconference, visible participants, avoiding distractions from other sources (e.g. e-mail, mobile phone), a videoconference sign-out and rapid dissemination of the outcomes sheet. CONCLUSION: This article presents a framework that uses human factors principles applied in this setting, which will contribute to enhanced patient safety, team working and a reduction in medical errors.

Dramatic Changes in Oncology Care Pathways During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The French ONCOCARE-COV Study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have affected cancer management. We aimed to evaluate changes in every oncology care pathway essential step, from screening to treatment, during the pandemic. Monthly oncological activity differences between 2019 and 2020 (screening tests, histopathological analyzes, multidisciplinary tumor board meetings (MTBMs), diagnostic announcement procedures (DAPs), and treatments were calculated in two French areas experiencing different pandemic intensity (Reims and Colmar). COVID-19 has had a dramatic impact in terms of screening (-86% to -100%), diagnosis (-39%), and surgical treatment (-30%). This global decrease in all essential oncology care pathway steps contrasted with the relative stability of chemotherapy (-9%) and radiotherapy use (-16%). Outbreak occurred earlier and with more intensity in Colmar but had a comparable impact in both areas regarding MTMBs and DAPs. The current ONCOCARE-COV study is still in progress and with a longer follow-up to analyze postlockdown situation.

Impact of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic dissemination on the management of neuroendocrine neoplasia in Italy: a report from the Italian Association for Neuroendocrine Tumors (Itanet).

INTRODUCTION: The organization of the healthcare system has significantly changed after the recent COVID-19 outbreak, with a negative impact on the management of oncological patients. The present survey reports data collected by the Italian Association for Neuroendocrine Tumors on the management of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN) during the pandemic dissemination. METHODS: A survey with 57 questions was sent to NEN-dedicated Italian centers regarding the management of patients in the period March 9, 2020, to May 9, 2020 RESULTS: The main modification in the centers' activity consisted of decreases in newly diagnosed NEN patients (- 76.8%), decreases in performed surgical procedures (- 58%), delays to starting peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (45.5%), postponed/canceled follow-up examinations (26%), and canceled multidisciplinary teams' activity (20.8%). A low proportion of centers (< 10%) reported having to withdraw systemic anti-tumor medical treatment due to concerns about the pandemic situation, whereas PRRT was withdrawn from no patients. CONCLUSION: Although the COVID-19 outbreak induced the centers to reduce some important activities in the management of NEN patients, the Italian network was able to provide continuity in care without withdrawing anti-tumor treatment for the majority of patients.