A Comprehensive Study on the Hematological Progression of Sickle Cell Disease Patients with COVID-19 at the Center for Research and Control of Sickle Cell Disease, Bamako.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is a real crisis that has exposed the unpreparedness of many healthcare systems worldwide. Several underlying health conditions have been identified as risk factors, including sickle cell disease, a chronic illness with various complications that can increase the risk of severe COVID-19 infection. Our study aimed to investigate the profile of sickle cell patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and explore any potential relationship between these two conditions. We analyzed data from 11 sickle cell patients who contracted COVID-19 between June and December 2020 and were treated at the CRLD (Center for Sickle Cell Disease and Research). The patients' COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed using the (Real-Time Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction) RT-PCR technique on nasopharyngeal swab samples and/or based on clinical and radiological findings, including CT scans. The patients consisted of 7 males and 4 females, with a mean age of 40 ± 12 years. The sickle cell phenotypes observed were SC (45.4%), SS (36.37%), and Sß± thalassemia (18.2%). During the COVID-19 infection, we observed a slight increase in white blood cell and platelet counts, but a decrease in mean hemoglobin levels and red blood cells. Only 3 out of 11 patients (28%) had a fever at the time of diagnosis. Three patients required red blood cell transfusions due to severe anemia, and 7 out of 11 patients (63.6%) were hospitalized, with one patient admitted to the intensive care unit due to pulmonary embolism. All patients recovered from COVID-19.

Evaluation of the tele-expertise project in the management of common dermatoses in Togo / Évaluation du projet de téléexpertise dans la prise en charge des dermatoses courantes au Togo

Introduction: Tele-expertise in dermatology represents an opportunity to change medical practice in response to the need for cost savings in the health sector. The aim of this study was to evaluate the medical activities of the pilot phase of the tele-expertise project in Togo. Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted in October 2020 on the 20 sites of the pilot phase. This evaluation consisted of a literature review and analysis of data posted on the tele-expertise platform. Results: A total of 738 (10.8%) of the 6810 dermatological consultations were posted on the tele-expertise platform. Of the 738 cases, the dermatologist's expertise did not allow a diagnosis to be made in 119 cases (16.1%). This expertise confirmed the single clinical hypothesis proposed by the health worker in 275 cases (37.3%) and allowed a diagnosis to be made among several clinical hypotheses in 30 cases (4.1%). On the contrary, the dermatologist's diagnosis was not included in the health worker's hypotheses in 201 cases (27.2%), and no clinical hypothesis was formulated in 113 cases (15.3%). The concordance between the clinical hypothesis proposed by the health worker and the diagnosis of the dermatologist was 48.8%. Regarding the acceptability of the tele-expertise, only one refusal was recorded. All patients were very satisfied with this practice. Conclusions: The results show the feasibility and acceptability of tele-expertise by health care personnel and patients. The diagnostic concordance of 48.8% shows the relative efficiency of task delegation.

Introduction: La téléexpertise en dermatologie représente une piste pour modifier l'exercice médical en réponse aux besoins d'économies de la santé. Le but de cette étude était d'évaluer les activités médicales de la phase pilote du projet de téléexpertise en dermatologie au Togo. Méthode: Il s'agit d'une étude transversale menée en octobre 2020 sur les 20 sites de la phase pilote. Cette évaluation consistait en une revue documentaire et l'analyse des données postées sur la plateforme de téléexpertise. Résultats: Au total, 738 (10,8 %) des 6 810 consultations dermatologiques ont été postées sur la plateforme de téléexpertise. Sur les 738 cas, l'expertise du dermatologue n'a pas permis de poser un diagnostic dans 119 cas (16,1 %). Cette expertise a confirmé l'hypothèse clinique unique proposée par l'agent de santé dans 275 cas (37,3 %) et a permis de conclure à un diagnostic parmi plusieurs hypothèses cliniques dans 30 cas (4,1 %). Au contraire, le diagnostic du dermatologue ne figurait pas dans les hypothèses de l'agent de santé dans 201 cas (27,2 %), et aucune hypothèse clinique n'avait été formulée dans 113 cas (15,3 %). La concordance entre l'hypothèse clinique proposée par l'agent de santé et le diagnostic du dermatologue était de 48,8 %. Concernant l'acceptabilité de la téléexpertise, un seul refus a été enregistré. Tous les patients étaient très satisfaits de cette pratique. Conclusions: Les résultats montrent la faisabilité et l'acceptabilité de la téléexpertise par les personnels de santé et les patients. La concordance diagnostique de 48,8 % montre la relative efficacité de la délégation de tâches.

iCHECK-DH: Guidelines and Checklist for the Reporting on Digital Health Implementations.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of digital health technologies has grown rapidly, but many remain limited to pilot studies due to challenges, such as a lack of evidence or barriers to implementation. Overcoming these challenges requires learning from previous implementations and systematically documenting implementation processes to better understand the real-world impact of a technology and identify effective strategies for future implementation. OBJECTIVE: A group of global experts, facilitated by the Geneva Digital Health Hub, developed the Guidelines and Checklist for the Reporting on Digital Health Implementations (iCHECK-DH, pronounced "I checked") to improve the completeness of reporting on digital health implementations. METHODS: A guideline development group was convened to define key considerations and criteria for reporting on digital health implementations. To ensure the practicality and effectiveness of the checklist, it was pilot-tested by applying it to several real-world digital health implementations, and adjustments were made based on the feedback received. The guiding principle for the development of iCHECK-DH was to identify the minimum set of information needed to comprehensively define a digital health implementation, to support the identification of key factors for success and failure, and to enable others to replicate it in different settings. RESULTS: The result was a 20-item checklist with detailed explanations and examples in this paper. The authors anticipate that widespread adoption will standardize the quality of reporting and, indirectly, improve implementation standards and best practices. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for reporting on digital health implementations are important to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of reported information. This allows for meaningful comparison and evaluation of results, transparency, and accountability and informs stakeholder decision-making. i-CHECK-DH facilitates standardization of the way information is collected and reported, improving systematic documentation and knowledge transfer that can lead to the development of more effective digital health interventions and better health outcomes.

Correction: iCHECK-DH: Guidelines and Checklist for the Reporting on Digital Health Implementations.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/46694.].