Dataset Information

A Review of Telemedicine Applications in Otorhinolaryngology: Considerations During the Coronavirus Disease of 2019 Pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Objective/hypothesis

Review the published literature of telemedicine's use within otorhinolaryngology (ORL), highlight its successful implementation, and document areas with need of future research.

Study design

State of the Art Review.

Methods

Three independent, comprehensive searches for articles published on the subject of telemedicine in ORL were conducted of literature available from January 2000 to April 2020. Search terms were designed to identify studies which examined telemedicine use within ORL. Consensus among authors was used to include all relevant articles.

Results

While several, small reports document clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and the cost of telemedicine, much of the literature on telemedicine in ORL is comprised of preliminary, proof-of-concept reports. Further research will be necessary to establish its strengths and limitations.

Conclusions

Particularly during the coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic, telemedicine can, and should, be used within ORL practice. This review can assist in guiding providers in implementing telemedicine that has been demonstrated to be successful, and direct future research. Laryngoscope, 131:744-759, 2021.

SUBMITTER: Singh AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7537247 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnder emergency coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic regulations, Medicare granted temporary payment parity with in-person visits for audio-only (telephone) telemedicine visits. This policy was designed to expand telemedicine to patients without camera-equipped devices and broadband internet. However, audio-only telemedicine use has been substantial.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore whether the rate of audio-only telemedicine during the pandemic is related to patient access to technology or provider behavior.DesignCross-sectional analysis of the Summer and Fall 2020 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey coronavirus disease 2019 supplements, using multivariable logistic models and accounting for complex survey design.SubjectsA total of 3375 participants in the summer survey and 2633 participants in the fall 2020 were offered a telemedicine visit to replace a scheduled in-person visit by their usual care provider.MeasuresWe compared beneficiaries who were exclusively offered audio-only telemedicine to beneficiaries who were offered video telemedicine or both audio and video.ResultsWe found that among Medicare beneficiaries who were offered telemedicine to replace a scheduled in-person appointment, ~35% were exclusively offered audio-only. 65.8% of beneficiaries exclusively offered audio-only reported having a smartphone/tablet and home internet. After controlling for personal access to technology, Hispanic [adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.09, P<0.001], dually eligible (AOR=1.63, P=0.002), nonprimary English speaking (AOR=1.64, P<0.001), and nonmetro beneficiaries (AOR=1.71, P=0.003) were more likely to be offered audio-only during July-November 2020.ConclusionsThese findings suggest audio-only telemedicine use during the pandemic is only partially related to patient access to technology. Policymakers must work to both expand programs that provide smartphones and broadband internet to disparity communities and telemedicine infrastructure to providers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The current ongoing pandemic outbreak of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) has globally affected 213 countries and territories with more than 2.5 million confirmed cases and thousands of casualties. The unpredictable and uncertain COVID-19 outbreak has the potential of adversely affecting the psychological health on individual and community level. Currently all efforts are focused on the understanding of epidemiology, clinical features, mode of transmission, counteract the spread of the virus, and challenges of global health, while crucially significant mental health has been overlooked in this endeavor. METHOD:This review is to evaluate past outbreaks to understand the extent of adverse effects on psychological health, psychological crisis intervention, and mental health management plans. Published previous and current articles on PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Elsevier about psychological impact of infectious diseases outbreaks and COVID-19 has been considered and reviewed. COMMENTS:COVID-19 is leading to intense psychosocial issues and comprising mental health marking a secondary health concern all around the world. Globally implementing preventive and controlling measures, and cultivating coping and resilience are challenging factors; modified lifestyle (lockdown curfew, self-isolation, social distancing and quarantine); conspiracy theories, misinformation and disinformation about the origin, scale, signs, symptoms, transmission, prevention and treatment; global socioeconomic crisis; travel restrictions; workplace hazard control; postponement and cancellation of religious, sports, cultural and entertainment events; panic buying and hoarding; incidents of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, stigma, psychological pressure of productivity, marginalization and violence; overwhelmed medical centers and health organizations, and general impact on education, politics, socioeconomic, culture, environment and climate - are some of the risk factors to aggravate further problems.

Project description:Controversy exists whether the cause of death due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is directly related to the infection or to underlying conditions. The purpose of this study is to assess the relationship of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection with the cause of death in hospitalized patients.DesignRetrospective observational study; deidentified discharge summaries of deceased patients were reviewed by two intensivists and classified as coronavirus disease 2019-related (caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) or coronavirus disease 2019-unrelated (not caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or indeterminate) deaths. For classification disagreement, a separate group of three intensivists reviewed the discharge summaries and arbitrated to determine the cause of death.SettingSingle-center study performed at the University of Texas Medical Branch.PatientsAll adult patients (> 18 yr) admitted from March 10, 2020, to October 22, 2020, with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test results who expired during their hospitalization were identified.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsPatient demographics, comorbidities, prescribed medications, and ventilatory support data were collected. Comparison between groups was performed using t test and chi-square test. During the study period, 1,052 patients were admitted within 14 days of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive test results, of whom 100 expired during the hospitalization. Deceased patients were predominantly male and older than 65 years. Obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) was present in 41%, and common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), diabetes (30%), and heart failure (20%). Death was classified as directly caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in 85% and not caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in 5%. An indeterminate cause of death in 10% was due to insufficient information or an atypical presentation. The observed interrater agreement on the cause of death classification was 81%.ConclusionsIn this single-center study, the majority of deaths in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive hospitalized patients were related to a typical or atypical presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 disease.

Project description:ObjectivesWhile most pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 cases are not life threatening, some children have severe disease requiring emergent resuscitative interventions. Resuscitation events present risks to healthcare provider safety and the potential for compromised patient care. Current resuscitation practices and policies for children with suspected/confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 are unknown.DesignMulti-institutional survey regarding inpatient resuscitation practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.SettingInternet-based survey.SubjectsU.S. PICU representatives (one per institution) involved in resuscitation system planning and oversight.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 130 institutions surveyed, 78 (60%) responded. Forty-eight centers (62%) had admitted coronavirus disease 2019 patients; 26 (33%) reported code team activation for patients with suspected/confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. Sixty-seven respondents (86%) implemented changes to inpatient emergency response systems. The most common changes were as follows: limited number of personnel entering patient rooms (75; 96%), limited resident involvement (71; 91%), and new or refined team roles (74; 95%). New or adapted technology is being used for coronavirus disease 2019 resuscitations in 58 centers (74%). Most institutions (57; 73%) are using enhanced personal protective equipment for all coronavirus disease 2019 resuscitation events; 18 (23%) have personal protective equipment policies dependent on the performance of aerosol generating procedures. Due to coronavirus disease 2019, most respondents are intubating earlier during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (56; 72%), utilizing video laryngoscopy (67; 86%), pausing chest compressions during laryngoscopy (56; 72%), and leaving patients connected to the ventilator during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (56; 72%). Responses were varied regarding airway personnel, prone cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilation strategy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation without an airway in place, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Most institutions (46; 59%) do not have policies regarding limitations of resuscitation efforts in coronavirus disease 2019 patients.ConclusionsMost U.S. pediatric institutions rapidly adapted their resuscitation systems and practices in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Changes were commonly related to team members and roles, personal protective equipment, and airway and breathing management, reflecting attempts to balance quality resuscitation with healthcare provider safety.