Management of people with epilepsy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national survey among epileptologists in China
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Xiao Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7588342 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the experience, views, and opinions of rheumatology providers at Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities about rheumatic disease health care issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe performed an anonymized cross-sectional survey, conducted from April 16 to May 18, 2020, of VA rheumatology providers. We assessed provider perspectives on COVID-19 issues and resilience.ResultsOf the 153 eligible VA rheumatologists, 103 (67%) completed the survey. A significant proportion of providers reported a ≥50% increase related to COVID-19 in visits by telephone (53%), video-based VA video connect (VVC; 44%), and clinical video telehealth with a facilitator (29%). A majority of the responders were somewhat or very comfortable with technology for providing health care to established patients during the COVID-19 pandemic using telephone (87%), VVC (64%), and in-person visits (54%). A smaller proportion were comfortable with technology providing health care to new patients. At least 65% of rheumatologists considered telephone visits appropriate for established patients with gout, osteoporosis, polymyalgia rheumatica, stable rheumatoid arthritis, stable spondyloarthritis, or osteoarthritis; 32% reported a rheumatology medication shortage. Adjusted for age, sex, and ethnicity, high provider resilience was associated with significantly higher odds ratios (ORs) of comfort with technology for telephone (OR 3.1 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.1-9.7]) and VVC visits for new patients (OR 4.7 [95% CI 1.4-15.7]).ConclusionA better understanding of COVID-19 rheumatic disease health care issues using a health-system approach can better inform providers, improve provider satisfaction, and have positive effects on the care of veterans with rheumatic disease.
| S-EPMC7675431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since December 2019, countries around the world have been struggling with a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Case series have reported that people with obesity experience more severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). During the COVID-19 pandemic, people have tended to gain weight because of environmental factors imposed by quarantine policies, such as decreased physical activity and increased consumption of unhealthy food. Mechanisms have been postulated to explain the association between COVID-19 and obesity. COVID-19 aggravates inflammation and hypoxia in people with obesity, which can lead to severe illness and the need for intensive care. The immune system is compromised in people with obesity and COVID-19 affects the immune system, which can lead to complications. Interleukin-6 and other cytokines play an important role in the progression of COVID-19. The inflammatory response, critical illness, and underlying risk factors may all predispose to complications of obesity such as diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases. The common medications used to treat people with obesity, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, statins, and antiplatelets agents, should be continued because these agents have anti-inflammatory properties and play protective roles against cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. It is also recommended that renin-angiotensin system blockers are not stopped during the COVID-19 pandemic because no definitive data about the harm or benefits of these agents have been reported. During the COVID-19 pandemic, social activities have been discouraged and exercise facilities have been closed. Under these restrictions, tailored lifestyle modifications such as home exercise training and cooking of healthy food are encouraged.
| S-EPMC7338495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn an effort to contain the effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, health care systems worldwide implemented telemedical solutions to overcome staffing, technical, and infrastructural limitations. In Germany, a multitude of telemedical systems are already being used, while new approaches are rapidly being developed in response to the crisis. However, the extent of the current implementation within different health care settings, the user's acceptance and perception, as well as the hindering technical and regulatory obstacles remain unclear.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to assess the current status quo of the availability and routine use of telemedical solutions, user acceptance, and the subjectively perceived burdens on telemedical approaches. Furthermore, we seek to assess the perception of public information quality among professional groups and their preferred communication channels.MethodsA national online survey was conducted on 14 consecutive days in March and April 2020, and distributed to doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals in the German language.ResultsA total of 2827 medical professionals participated in the study. Doctors accounted for 65.6% (n=1855) of the professionals, 29.5% (n=833) were nursing staff, and 4.9% (n=139) were identified as others such as therapeutic staff. A majority of participants rated the significance of telemedicine within the crisis as high (1065/2730, 39%) or neutral (n=720, 26.4%); however, there were significant differences between doctors and nurses (P=.01) as well as between the stationary sector compared to the ambulatory sector (P<.001). Telemedicine was already in routine use for 19.6% (532/2711) of German health care providers and in partial use for 40.2% (n=1090). Participants working in private practices (239/594, 40.2%) or private clinics (23/59, 39.0%) experienced less regulatory or technical obstacles compared to university hospitals (586/1190, 49.2%). A majority of doctors rated the public information quality on COVID-19 as good (942/1855, 50.8%) or very good (213/1855, 11.5%); nurses rated the quality of public information significantly lower (P<.001). Participant's age negatively correlated with the perception of telemedicine's significance (ρ=-0.23; P<.001).ConclusionsTelemedicine has a broad acceptance among German medical professionals. However, to establish telemedical structures within routine care, technical and regulatory burdens must be overcome.
| S-EPMC7409912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the care of all patients around the world. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) COVID-19 and Telemedicine Task Forces examined, through surveys to people with epilepsy (PWE), caregivers, and health care professionals, how the pandemic has affected the well-being, care, and services for PWE. The ILAE included a link on their website whereby PWE and/or their caregivers could fill out a survey (in 11 languages) about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including access to health services and impact on mental health, including the 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. An anonymous link was also provided whereby health care providers could report cases of new-onset seizures or an exacerbation of seizures in the context of COVID-19. Finally, a separate questionnaire aimed at exploring the utilization of telehealth by health care professionals since the pandemic began was available on the ILAE website and also disseminated to its members. Seventeen case reports were received; data were limited and therefore no firm conclusions could be drawn. Of 590 respondents to the well-being survey (422 PWE, 166 caregivers), 22.8% PWE and 27.5% caregivers reported an increase in seizure frequency, with difficulty in accessing medication and health care professionals reported as barriers to care. Of all respondents, 57.1% PWE and 21.5% caregivers had severe psychological distress (k score >13), which was significantly higher among PWE than caregivers (p<0.01). An increase in telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic was reported by health care professionals, with 40% of consultations conducted by this method. Although 74.9% of health care providers thought that this impacted positively, barriers to care were also identified. As we move forward, there is a need to ensure ongoing support and care for PWE to prevent a parallel pandemic of unmet health care needs.
| S-EPMC8652685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly impacted health care delivery across the United States, including treatment of cancer. We aim to describe the determinants of treatment plan changes from the perspective of oncology physicians across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:Participants were recruited to an anonymous cross-sectional online survey of oncology physicians (surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists) using social media from March 27 to April 10, 2020. Physician demographics, practice characteristics, and cancer treatment decisions were collected. RESULTS:The analytic cohort included 411 physicians: 241 (58.6%) surgeons, 106 (25.8%) medical oncologists, and 64 (15.6%) radiation oncologists. In all, 38.0% were practicing in states with 1001 to 5000 confirmed COVID-19 cases as of April 3, 2020, and 37.2% were in states with >5000 cases. Most physicians (N=285; 70.0% of surgeons, 64.4% of medical oncologists, and 73.4% of radiation oncologists) had altered cancer treatment plans. Most respondents were concerned about their patients' COVID-19 exposure risks, but this was the primary driver for treatment alterations only for medical oncologists. For surgeons, the primary driver for treatment alterations was conservation of personal protective equipment, institutional mandates, and external society recommendations. Radiation oncologists were primarily driven by operational changes such as visitor restrictions. CONCLUSIONS:The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a majority of oncologists to alter their treatment plans, but the primary motivators for changes differed by oncologic specialty. This has implications for reinstitution of standard cancer treatment, which may occur at differing time points by treatment modality.
| S-EPMC7513953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Only a few studies investigated the impact of quarantine on anxiety of general population during a second wave of COVID-19 breakout. We aimed to compare anxiety levels of quarantined and non-quarantined people and investigate factors affecting anxiety during the second COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 1837 participants were included in this cross-sectional study. Anxiety was measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Participants were divided into the quarantined group (QG) and non-quarantined group (Non-QG). The mean STAI-S score in the QG was significantly higher than Non-QG (41.8 ± 11.2 vs 40.01 ± 9.9), so was the proportion of severe state anxiety (11.6% vs 5.5%). Males in the QG were significantly more anxious than females evaluated by both STAI-S and STAI-T. High income was independent protective factors while moderate or bad health status and high trait anxiety level were independent risk factors for severe state anxiety. In conclusion, the COVID-19 confinement could significantly increase anxiety of quarantined people. Males were more vulnerable to the quarantine of COVID-19 with significantly increased anxiety level than females. The results suggest that attention should be paid to anxiety during a second round of quarantine due to COVID-19 and are of help in planning psychological interventions.
| S-EPMC7783475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic continues to overwhelm health systems across the globe. We aimed to assess the readiness of hospitals in Nigeria to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak.MethodBetween April and October 2020, hospital representatives completed a modified World Health Organisation (WHO) COVID-19 hospital readiness checklist consisting of 13 components and 124 indicators. Readiness scores were classified as adequate (score ≥80%), moderate (score 50-79.9%) and not ready (score <50%).ResultsAmong 20 (17 tertiary and three secondary) hospitals from all six geopolitical zones of Nigeria, readiness score ranged from 28.2% to 88.7% (median 68.4%), and only three (15%) hospitals had adequate readiness. There was a median of 15 isolation beds, four ICU beds and four ventilators per hospital, but over 45% of hospitals established isolation facilities and procured ventilators after the onset of COVID-19. Of the 13 readiness components, the lowest readiness scores were reported for surge capacity (61.1%), human resources (59.1%), staff welfare (50%) and availability of critical items (47.7%).ConclusionMost hospitals in Nigeria were not adequately prepared to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak. Current efforts to strengthen hospital preparedness should prioritize challenges related to surge capacity, critical care for COVID-19 patients, and staff welfare and protection.
| S-EPMC8454967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe management of obstetric patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to human-to-human transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) requires unique considerations. Many aspects of labour and delivery practice required adaptation in response to the global pandemic and were supported by guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists. The adoption and adherence to these guidelines is unknown.MethodsParticipating centres in "Quality of Recovery in Obstetric Anaesthesia study-a multicentre study" (ObsQoR) completed an electronic survey based on the provision of services and care related to COVID-19 in October 2021. The survey was designed against the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists COVID-19 guidelines.ResultsOne hundred and five of the 107 participating centres completed the survey (98% response rate representing 54% of all UK obstetric units). The median [IQR] annual number of deliveries among the included sites was 4389 [3000-5325]. Ninety-nine of the 103 (94.3%) sites had guidelines for the management of peripartum women with COVID-19. Sixty-one of 105 (58.1%) sites had specific guidance for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. Thirty-seven of 104 (35.6%) centres restricted parturient birthing plans if a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 was made. A COVID-19 vaccination referral pathway encouraging full vaccination for all pregnant women was present in 63/103 centres (61.2%).ConclusionWe found variability in care delivered and adherence to guidelines related to COVID-19. The clinical implications for this related to quality of peripartum care is unclear, however there remains scope to improve pathways for immunisation, birth plans and VTE prophylaxis.
| S-EPMC9335395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, several questions have arisen about which endoscopic procedures (EPs) must be performed and which ones can be postponed. The aim of this study was to conduct a nationwide survey regarding the appropriate timing of EPs during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis prospective study was performed through a nationwide electronic survey. The survey consisted of 15 questions divided into three sections. The first evaluated the agreement for EPs classified as "time sensitive" and "not time sensitive". Two other sections assessed "high-priority" and "low-priority" scenarios. Agreement was considered when > 75% of respondents answered a question in the same direction.ResultsThe response rate was 27.2% (214/784). Among the respondents, agreement for the need to perform EP in < 72 h was only reached for variceal bleeding (93.4%). Dysphagia with alarm symptoms was the scenario in which the highest percentage of physicians (95.9%) agreed that an EP needed to be performed within a month. Less than 30% of endoscopists would perform an EP within the first 72 h for patients with mild cholangitis, non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding without hemodynamic instability, or severe anaemia without overt bleeding. In time-sensitive clinical scenarios suggestive of benign disease, none of the scenarios reached agreement in any sense. Among the time-sensitive clinical scenarios suggestive of malignancy, > 90% of the surveyed respondents considered that EP could not be postponed for > 8 weeks.ConclusionsThere was no consensus among endoscopists about the timing of EPs in patients with pathologies considered time sensitive or in those with high-priority pathologies. Agreement was only reached in five (17%) of the evaluated clinical scenarios.
| S-EPMC7831145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDriven by the challenges of alternative healthcare supply during the COVID-19 pandemic, acceptance and appreciation of telemedicine were assessed in a German tertiary epilepsy center.MethodsTwo hundred thirty-nine patients with epilepsy (53% female, 35% seizure-free, 97% on antiseizure medication) answered a structured audit on telemedical counseling as part of individual outpatients' care.ResultsOverall 82% of the participants were satisfied with the telemedical appointment. The telemedical appointment was rated equal to onsite appointments in means of time (91%), comprehensibility (94%), and opportunity to get answers to current questions (92%). It was evaluated as good as onsite appointments regarding comprehension of the disease (88%) and impact on following the physician's advice (82%). The participants considered immediate convenience and shortfall of travel expenses as advantages of telemedicine, whereas lack of personal contact and diagnostics (electroencephalogram [EEG] recordings, blood analysis) were seen as disadvantages. About 73% of the participants would appreciate the opportunity of future telemedical counseling, but the majority (75%) wished to have further appointments onsite.ConclusionsOverall, people with epilepsy appear to be satisfied with telemedical counseling. However, patients greatly appreciate the medical services onsite and consider telemedicine as an add-on service rather than a substitute to visits onsite.
| S-EPMC7422810 | biostudies-literature