Dataset Information

Teledermatology during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experience at a tertiary care centre in North India.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Teledermatology has evolved as a valuable option to outpatient visits during the current pandemic. We set up a smartphone-based hybrid model of teledermatology services providing direct care to patients at our center. To analyse patient and physician-experience and acceptability for teledermatology over a 6-month-period, along with clinicodemographic profile of patients.

Methodology

Single-center, retrospective study conducted from May 20, 2020 to October 31, 2020. Patient satisfaction level for teledermatology was assessed on a 4-point scale and compared with the satisfaction level during their previous physical visits prior to COVID-19 pandemic. A physician assessment form was utilised to record the experience of dermatologists while providing teledermatology services.

Results

Of 7530 patients registered, a successful consult was provided to 6125 patients (81.34%). Average number of teleconsultations/day rose from 23.60 in May 2020 to 77.96 in October 2020. Mean age of patients availing teledermatology services was 33.60 ± 16.99 years. Average distance to care and travel time were 100.90 ± 171.77 km and 135 ± 222.32 min, respectively. A definitive diagnosis could be ascertained in 5724 patients (93.45%) and in-person visit was recommended to 133 patients (2.2%). Out of 6125 patients, 5229 could be contacted for feedback, 935 (18.18%), 2230 (42.65%), 1749 (33.45%), and 300 patients (5.70%) reported being very satisfied, satisfied, partially satisfied, and unsatisfied, respectively. Of 1914 patients, who had availed in-person OPD facilities prior to the pandemic, 914 patients (49.62%) preferred in-person visits. Of 34 dermatologists surveyed, 88.2% felt comfortable providing teleconsultations and 82.4% felt the need to continue teledermatology services in the upcoming months.

Conclusions

Overall, teledermatology is a valid alternative for in-person dermatology visits during the current crisis; helping with initial triage and further patient management. Further refinement of the process could lead to even more acceptability.

SUBMITTER: Handa S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8209945 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite rapidly evolving knowledge about COVID 19 infection, routes of perinatal COVID 19 transmission and viral load in mother neonate dyad remain uncertain. Data were analysed to describe the clinicodemographic profile and viral load in neonates born to COVID 19 positive mothers. Of 2947 deliveries, 69 mothers were COVID 19 positive (2.3%), with 1 abortion, 2 macerated stillbirths and 2 fresh stillbirths as pregnancy outcomes. Of 65 tested neonates, 10.7% (7) were confirmed COVID 19 positive by RTPCR (reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction). Viral load (cycle threshold, Ct of E, RDRp) in neonates was comparable with the Ct reported from adults; however, neonates had milder clinical manifestations. All 7 neonates who tested positive for COVID 19 were subsequently discharged. Six of the 7 neonates were asymptomatic and 1 neonate needed respiratory support (indication being prematurity) which resolved after 48 h. Maternal and neonatal comparison of Ct of E and RdRp gene was statistically non-significant (25.97 vs 19.68, p = 0.34 and 26.5 vs 25.0, p = 0.84). Viral loads of mothers with COVID 19 positive neonates compared with mothers with COVID 19 negative neonates for E and RdRp gene were also statistically non-significant (25 vs 27.19, p = 0.63 and 19.6 vs 27.6, p = 0.08). The majority (93%) of neonates tested later than 48 h (roomed in with mother and breastfed) tested negative.Conclusion: The study supports milder manifestation in COVID 19 positive neonates. Risk of transmission from COVID 19 positive mother to neonate by rooming-in and breastfeeding is low. In this study on a limited number of neonates, maternal viral load was not found to be associated with the positivity status or severity of the illness of neonate. What is Known: • Neonates born to COVID 19 positive mothers are at risk of COVID 19 infection. What is New: • Risk of transmission of COVID 19 from mother to neonate, with rooming-in and breastfeeding, appears low. • In this study on a limited number of neonates, maternal viral load of COVID 19 (E and RdRp cycle thresholds) was not associated with severity of illness or COVID 19 positivity in neonates.

Project description:BackgroundLike with all cancers, multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the norm in bone and soft tissue tumour (BST) management too. Problem in attendance of specialists due to geographical location is the one of the key barriers to effective functioning of MDTs. To overcome this problem, virtual MDTs involving videoconferencing or telemedicine have been proposed, but however this has been seldom used and tested. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the implementation of virtual MDTs in the Oxford sarcoma service in order to maintain normal service provision. We conducted a survey among the participants to evaluate its efficacy.MethodsAn online questionnaire comprising of 24 questions organised into 4 sections was circulated among all participants of the MDT after completion of 8 virtual MDTs. Opinions were sought comparing virtual MDTs to the conventional face-to-face MDTs on various aspects. A total of 36 responses were received and were evaluated.Results72.8% were satisfied with the depth of discussion in virtual MDTs and 83.3% felt that the decision-making in diagnosis had not changed following the switch from face-to-face MDTs. About 86% reported to have all essential patient data was available to make decisions and 88.9% were satisfied with the time for discussion of patient issues over virtual platform. Three-fourths of the participants were satisfied (36.1% - highly satisfied; 38.9% - moderately satisfied) with virtual MDTs and 55.6% of them were happy to attend MDTs only by the virtual platform in the future. Regarding future, 77.8% of the participants opined that virtual MDTs would be the future of cancer care and an overwhelming majority (91.7%) felt that the present exercise would serve as a precursor to global MDTs involving specialists from abroad in the future.ConclusionOur study shows that the forced switch to virtual MDTs in sarcoma care following the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic to be a viable and effective alternative to conventional face-to-face MDTs. With effective and efficient software in place, virtual MDTs would also facilitate in forming extended MDTs in seeking opinions on complex cases from specialists abroad and can expand cancer care globally.