Dataset Information

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on people with epilepsy: An interventional study using early physical consultation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Telehealth use is limited in developing countries. Therefore, a modified approach with early physical consultation was designed and applied in our hospital. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of this early physical consultation in reducing the clinical and psychological impacts of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), which enabled insight into its global feasibility.

Method

Participants were contacted and offered early physical consultation with a neurologist. Patients who participated in the Phase 1 study on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with epilepsy and treated in our hospital were recruited. Clinical and psychological outcomes of COVID-19 were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) and Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31).

Result

A total of 312 patients completed this study with a mean age of 39.13 ± 16.13 years, majority female (51.0%), and experienced seizures at least once yearly (64.7%). There was 12.6% who experienced seizure worsening related to the COVID-19 pandemic. After receiving early clinical intervention, 30.8% achieved better seizure control with another 51.1% had no seizure occurrence. The mean HADS anxiety score improved immediately post-intervention (5.27 ± 4.32 vs. 4.79 ± 4.26, p < 0.01), and at 2-week post-intervention (5.58 ± 4.46 vs. 4.73 ± 3.95, p < 0.01). The mean HADS depression score also improved immediately post-intervention (4.12 ± 3.69 vs. 3.84 ± 3.76, p < 0.05) and at 2-week post-intervention (4.38 ± 3.81 vs. 3.73 ± 3.63, p < 0.05). The intervention resulted in significant improvement in energy-fatigue and social function subscales in QOLIE-31 but a reduction in cognitive and medication effects subscales.

Conclusion

Early physical consultation with stringent precautionary measures is feasible and effective in improving the psychological outcome during COVID-19 pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Koh MY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270747 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: We explored the impact of the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) emergency on the health of people with epilepsy (PwE). We also investigated their attitude toward telemedicine. Methods: The PubMed database up to September 10, 2020 was searched for questionnaire-based studies conducted in PwE during the COVID-19 emergency, and the literature retrieved was reviewed. In addition, all patients who had a telephone consultation with our center between May 7 and July 31, 2020 were invited to fill in a 57-item online questionnaire focusing on epilepsy and comorbidities, any changes in lifestyle or clinical conditions and any emergency-related problems arising during the COVID-19 emergency, and their views on telemedicine. Associations between variables were detected through X 2 test and Fisher's exact test. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the effects of different factors on clinical conditions. Results: Twelve studies met the literature search criteria. They showed that the rate of seizure worsening during the emergency ranged from 4 to 35% and was mainly correlated with epilepsy severity, sleep disturbances and COVID-19-related issues. Our questionnaire was filled in by 222 PwE or caregivers. One hundred (76.6%) reported unchanged clinical conditions, 25 (11.3%) an improvement, and 27 (12%) a deterioration. Reported clinical worsening was associated with a psychiatric condition and/or medication (OR = 12.59, p < 0.001), sleep disorders (OR = 8.41, p = 0.001), limited access to healthcare (OR = 4.71, p = 0.016), and experiencing seizures during the emergency (OR = 4.51, p = 0.007). Telemedicine was considered acceptable by 116 subjects (52.3%). Conclusions: Most PwE did not experience a significant change in their clinical conditions during the COVID-19 emergency. However, severity of epilepsy, concomitant disability, comorbid psychiatric conditions, sleep disorders and limited access to healthcare may affect their health.

Project description:BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the Otolaryngology outpatient clinical practice, which is at high risk of respiratory viral transmission due to the close contact between the examiner and the patient's airway secretions [1]. Moreover, most otolaryngological procedures, including oropharyngoscopy, generate droplets or aerosols from high viral shedding areas [1]. Thus, only non-deferrable consultations were performed in the outbreak's acute phase. Along with the re-opening of elective clinical services and the impending second wave of the outbreak, a reorganization is necessary to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission [1].MethodsThis video (Video 1) shows how to safely conduct an outpatient Otorhinolaryngological consultation, focusing on complete ear, nose and throat examination, according to evidences from the published literature and Otolaryngological societies guidelines [2,3].ResultsAfter telephonic screening, patients reporting Covid-19 symptoms or closecontact with a Covid-19 case within the last 14 days are referred to telehealth services [1-3]. To avoid crowding, the patient is admitted alone, after body temperature control, except for underage or disabled people [1]. The waiting room assessment must guarantee a social distance of 6 ft [1-3]. The consultation room is reorganized into two separate areas (Fig. 1): 1) a clean desk area, where an assistant wearing a surgical mask and gloves, handles the patient's documentation and writes the medical report, keeping proper distance from the patient, and 2) a separate consultation area, where the examiner, equipped with proper personal protective equipment (Fig. 2) [3,4], carries out the medical interview and physical examination. Endoscopic-assisted ear, nose and throat inspection using a dedicated monitor allows the examiner to maintain an adequate distance from the patient throughout the procedure while providing an optimal view (Figs. 3-6) [3]. Recent evidence shows that nasal endoscopy does not increase droplet production compared to traditional otolaryngological examination [5]. When necessary, nasal topic decongestion and anesthesia must be performed using cottonoids rather than sprays [3]. The patient keeps the nose and mouth covered throughout the consultation, lowering the surgical mask on the mouth for nasal endoscopy and removing it only for oropharyngoscopy. After the consultation, the doffing procedure must be carried out carefully to avoid contamination [4]. All the equipment and surfaces must undergo high-level disinfection with 70% alcohol or 0.1% bleach solutions [3]. Proper room ventilation must precede the next consultation [3].ConclusionsThe hints provided in this video are useful to ensure both patient and examiner safety during Otolaryngological outpatient consultations and to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Project description:Background: The impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic extends beyond the realms of patient care and healthcare resource use to include medical education; however, the repercussions of COVID-19 on the quality of training and trainee perceptions have yet to be explored. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of interventional pulmonology (IP) fellows' involvement in the care of COVID-19 and its impact on fellows' clinical education, procedure skills, and postgraduation employment search. Methods: An internet-based survey was validated and distributed among IP fellows in North American fellowship training programs. Results: Of 40 eligible fellows, 38 (95%) completed the survey. A majority of fellows (76%) reported involvement in the care of patients with COVID-19. Fellows training in the Northeast United States reported involvement in the care of a higher number of patients with COVID-19 than in other regions (median, 30 [interquartile range, 20-50] vs. 10 [5-13], respectively; P < 0.01). Fifty-two percent of fellows reported redeployment outside IP during COVID-19, mostly into intensive care units. IP procedure volume decreased by 21% during COVID-19 compared with pre-COVID-19 volume. This decrease was mainly accounted for by a reduction in bronchoscopies. A majority of fellows (82%) reported retainment of outpatient clinics during COVID-19 with the transition from face-to-face to telehealth-predominant format. Continuation of academic and research activities during COVID-19 was reported by 86% and 82% of fellows, respectively. After graduation, all fellows reported having secured employment positions. Conclusion: Although IP fellows were extensively involved in the care of patients with COVID-19, most IP programs retained educational activities through the COVID-19 outbreak. The impact of the decrease in procedure volume on trainee competency would be best addressed individually within each training program. These data may assist in focusing efforts regarding the education of medical trainees during the current and future healthcare crises.