Disparate healthcare access and telehealth-based hybrid consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic led to rapid expansion of telehealth services. This was speculated to improve healthcare access among underserved populations, including individuals unable to take time off work or arrange transportation. OBJECTIVE: We completed a quality improvement project to evaluate the feasibility of hybrid consultations that combined televisits and abbreviated in-person visits for neuromuscular referrals. METHODS: Using a censoring date of August 5, 2021, we reviewed all outpatient neuromuscular consultations from August 5, 2020 to February 5, 2021. For both hybrid and traditional in-person consultations, we reviewed no-show rates, completion rates of ordered diagnostic workup, and billing codes. For hybrid consultations only, we also reviewed intervals between initial televisit and subsequent examination and rates of video-enhanced versus audio-only televisits. RESULTS: During the study period, we completed 153 hybrid and 59 in-person new-patient consultations (no-show rates 9% and 27% respectively.) For hybrid consultations, 77% and 73% of laboratory and imaging studies were completed respectively, compared to 89% and 91% for in-person consultations. For hybrid visits, average RVUs (a marker for reimbursement) per consultation depended on whether audio-only televisits were billed as telephone calls or E/M visits per insurance payer rules, while video-enhanced televisits were uniformly billed as E/M visits. This resulted in average RVUs between 2.09 and 2.26, compared to 2.30 for in-person consultations. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth-based hybrid neuromuscular consultations are feasible with minor caveats. However, the future of telehealth may be restricted by decreasing reimbursement rates particularly for audio-only televisits, limiting its potential to improve healthcare access.

Optimizing the operation of an electrodiagnostic laboratory during the COVID-19 pandemic: A 6-month single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: The initial surge of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in early 2020 led to widespread cancellation of elective medical procedures in the United States, including nonurgent outpatient and inpatient electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies. As certain regions later showed a downtrend in daily new cases, EDx laboratories have reopened under the guidance of the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM). In our reopening experience guided by the AANEM, we measured relevant outcomes to determine further workflow adaptations. We aimed to detail our experience and share the lessons learned. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical volumes, billing data, diagnosis distributions, and rates of COVID-19 exposure and transmission among patients and staff in our EDx laboratory during the first 6 months of reopening, starting on June 1, 2020. For context, we detailed the recent AANEM guidelines we adopted at our laboratory, supplemented by other consensus statements. RESULTS: We completed 816 outpatient studies from June 1 to December 1, 2020, reaching 97% of the total volume and 97% of total billing compared with the same time period in 2019. The average relative value units per study were similar. There were no major shifts in diagnosis distributions. We completed 10 of 12 requested inpatient studies during this period. There were no known COVID-19 transmissions between patients and staff. DISCUSSION: Our experience suggests that it is possible to safely operate an EDx laboratory under the guidance of the AANEM and other experts, with clinical volume and billing rates comparable to pre-pandemic baselines.

A Clinician's Approach to Peripheral Neuropathy.

Peripheral neuropathies are a group of disorders that affect the peripheral nervous system, for which hundreds of etiologies have been identified. This article presents a stepwise approach to the evaluation and workup of peripheral neuropathy, which starts with a detailed history of symptoms, family and occupational history, and a neurological as well as general physical exam. Pattern recognition of various neuropathies can help to build a differential diagnosis based on the presentation. Such patterns include acute versus chronic, primary demyelinating versus axonal, hereditary versus acquired, asymmetric versus symmetric, presence of facial palsies, sensory or motor predominant, and presence of prominent autonomic symptoms. Early categorization of the type of neuropathy can help focus the workup for peripheral neuropathy. Nerve conduction studies and electromyography (NCS/EMG) is the primary diagnostic tool in the evaluation of patients with large-fiber polyneuropathy. One of the most important roles of NCS/EMG is to help categorize polyneuropathy as primary axonal versus primary demyelinating. The finding of a primary demyelinating polyneuropathy narrows the differential diagnosis of polyneuropathy dramatically and increases the chances of finding a treatable etiology. Laboratory workup includes serum studies and potentially cerebrospinal fluid, genetic studies, immunological markers, and fat pad biopsy for select patients. Skin biopsy may be used to assess intraepidermal nerve fiber density if small-fiber neuropathy is suspected, and nerve biopsy may be useful in select cases. In recent years, magnetic resonance imaging and neuromuscular ultrasound have also shown promise in the evaluation of peripheral neuropathy. Identification of the etiology of neuropathy is crucial and often time-sensitive, as an increasing number of causes are now reversible or treatable.

Progressive myoclonus epilepsy with demyelinating peripheral neuropathy and preserved intellect: a novel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The progressive myoclonic epilepsies (PMEs) are a disparate group of syndromes whose common features include disabling myoclonus, progressive cognitive decline, and seizures, typically with a relentless deterioration over time. OBJECTIVE: To report a novel PME syndrome. DESIGN: Case report. SETTING: Epilepsy service in a tertiary care urban medical center. PATIENT: A 24-year-old man with progressive myoclonus, seizures, and unique features of preserved intellect and demyelinating peripheral neuropathy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Detailed clinical assessment, electrophysiologic studies, and survey of the literature. RESULTS: We characterize an unusual PME phenotype with unique features of preserved intellect and electrophysiologic evidence of a generalized demyelinating peripheral neuropathic condition. An extensive diagnostic evaluation did not reveal an underlying cause, and a literature survey did not identify other, similar clinical reports. CONCLUSION: We describe a novel PME syndrome with preserved intellect and demyelinating peripheral neuropathy.

Quantitative sensory testing.

Quantitative sensory testing is a reliable way of assessing large and small sensory nerve fiber function. Sensory deficits may be quantified and the data used in parametric statistical analysis in research studies and drug trials. It is an important addition to the neurophysiologic armamentarium, because conventional sensory nerve conduction tests only the large fibers. QST is a psychophysical test and lacks the objectivity of NCS. The results are subject to changes owing to distraction, boredom, mental fatigue, drowsiness, or confusion. When patients are consciously or unconsciously biased toward an abnormal QST result, no psychophysical testing can reliably distinguish these patients from those with organic disease. QST tests the integrity of the entire sensory neuraxis and is of no localizing value. Dysfunction of the peripheral nerves or central nervous system may give rise to abnormalities in QST. As is true for other neurophysiologic tests, QST results should always be interpreted in light of the patient's clinical presentation. Quantitative sensory testing has been shown to be reasonably reproducible over a period of days or weeks in normal subjects. Because longitudinal QST studies of patients in drug trials are usually performed over a period of several months to a few years, reproducibility studies on the placebo-control group should be included. For individual patients, more studies are needed to determine the maximum allowable difference between two QSTs that can be attributed to experimental error. The reproducibility of thermal thresholds may not be as good as that of vibration threshold. Different commercially available QST instruments have different specifications (thermode size, stimulus characteristics), testing protocols, algorithms, and normal values. Only QST instruments and their corresponding methodologies that have been shown to be reproducible should be used for research and patient care. The data in the literature do not allow conclusions regarding the superiority of any QST instruments. The future of QST is promising; however, many factors can affect QST results. As is true for other neurophysiologic tests, QST is susceptible to many extraneous factors and to misuse when not properly interpreted by the clinician.