Dataset Information

Telemedicine comes of age during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): An international survey of oculoplastic surgeons.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an ongoing healthcare crisis that continues its worldwide spread. Ophthalmologists are at high risk of acquiring and transmitting the virus. Telemedicine platforms have evolved and may play an important role in attenuating this risk. For patients, these platforms provide the possibility of clinic consultation without the concerns of a clinic visit. We aimed to assess the utilization of telemedicine by oculoplastics specialists worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A 13-item survey was distributed internationally to practicing oculoplastic surgeons. Collected data included demographics, clinical practice variables and perceptions regarding telemedicine. Significance of associations and single survey items was evaluated by Chi-squared and z-score of proportions tests, respectively.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 70 oculoplastic surgeons (54.3% male, mean age 47.3 years, median experience 10 years) from eight countries, practicing in various clinical settings (50.0% hospitals, 45.7% private clinics, 4.3% community clinics). Most respondents reported telemedicine to be an effective tool for oculoplastic consultations (67.1%, p = 0.004), while only 12.8% (p < 0.00001) had incorporated this modality into clinical practice prior to the pandemic. Even though a vast majority (98.6%) of participants had limited outpatient activity, most (55.7%) felt unprotected from the virus. Telemedicine had been incorporated by 70.5% (p = 0.001) of respondents during the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas most (57.1%) predicted continued use of the modality.

Conclusion

Telemedicine can be effectively and rapidly incorporated into the clinical practice of oculoplastic surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research into the most effective utilization of these platforms appears warranted.

SUBMITTER: Assayag E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8606803 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThere are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials.DesignIn an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically.SettingInternational.SubjectsAdults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers).InterventionsNone.MeasurementsNone.Main resultsIn total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes.ConclusionsLife-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.