Dataset Information

Feasibility and acceptance of a virtual multidisciplinary care programme for patients with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is one of the major public health concerns. The current lifestyle and advances in technology resulted in the development of a virtual mode of professional healthcare, which is an effective alternative method of management of patients. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of implementation of a virtual comprehensive care programme during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients' acceptance and the changes in self-care behaviours, metabolic parameters and emotional factors.

Methods

The programme employed in this study included nine health interventions in 1 day. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mode of interventions, including questionnaires, patient evaluations and a satisfaction survey, was modified to the virtual form in 2020. This study assessed the changes in self-care behaviours, metabolic parameters and emotional factors and compared the data pertaining to patients who received virtual healthcare in 2020 with those who received face-to-face modality of medical care in 2019.

Results

During June to November 2020, 130 patients received healthcare by means of the virtual modality. The change in modality of healthcare was feasible and 75% of the patients displayed good acceptance of the same. The evaluation of self-care behaviours included self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) levels, foot care and regular exercise. The duration of exercise decreased from 120 to 0 min/week (p < 0.001). However, there was no change in metabolic parameters. Regarding the mental health parameters, we observed an increase in the proportion of patients with anxiety (21.5% versus 11.1%), depressive symptoms (10.8% versus 4.3%), diabetes distress (18.5% versus 11.1%) and prescription of psychotropic drugs (32.8% versus 18.2%) (p < 0.05) in virtual versus face-to-face, respectively.

Conclusion

The virtual comprehensive care programme for the management of patients with diabetes is a feasible approach that allows healthcare professionals to provide an adequate care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Hernandez-Jimenez S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8637687 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure (HF) patients with CRT devices are a vulnerable patient population during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. It is important to develop innovative virtual care models to deliver multidisciplinary care while minimizing the risk of SARS-CoV2 exposure.ObjectiveWe aim to provide a description of how HF patients with CRT devices were assessed and managed in our virtual multidisciplinary clinic during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Clinical outcomes between this group of patients seen in virtual clinic and a historical cohort followed by in-person multi-disciplinary clinic prior to the pandemic were compared.MethodThis is a retrospective cohort study of HF patients with CRT implants who were seen in the virtual multidisciplinary clinic from March 18th, 2020 to May 27th, 2020 (Virtual Visit Group, N = 43). A historical cohort of HF patients with CRT devices seen in the ReACT clinic in person during the same calendar time period in 2019 was used as a control group (In-Person Visit Group, N = 39). Both groups were followed until July 1st of the same calendar year (2020 or 2019) for clinical events. The primary outcome measure was a combined outcome of all-cause mortality and HF- or device-related hospitalizations during follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included patient satisfaction, COVID-19 infection, and other cardiovascular events.ResultsIn the Virtual-Visit Group, 21 patients (48.8%) had their initial ReACT clinic visit (first visit after CRT implant) as a virtual visit; 22 patients (51.2%) had prior in-person ReACT clinic visits before the first virtual visit. During the virtual visits, 12 patients had either potential cardiac symptoms or significant device interrogation findings that required clinical intervention. In post-virtual clinic patient satisfaction survey, all 22 patients surveyed (100%) reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the overall experience of the virtual clinic, and every patient (100%) said they would like to use telemedicine again. During a median follow-up period of 82 days (interquartile range [IQR] 61-96 days), one patient died from pneumonia of unclear etiology at an outside hospital, without documentation of COVID-19 positivity. No patient was hospitalized for HF- or arrhythmia-related complications. No patient was diagnosed with COVID-19. Compared with the In-Person Visit Group, there was no significant increase in mortality or major cardiovascular events in the Virtual-Visit Group (2.3% versus 5.1%, P = 0.60).Conclusions and relevanceVirtual multidisciplinary care was feasible for HF patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy devices and achieved good patient satisfaction. Virtual care was not associated with short-term increase in adverse events for HF patients with CRT device during the COVID-19 Pandemic. This virtual care model could help promote the adoption of digital health methodology for high-risk patients with multiple cardiac comorbidities.

Project description:BackgroundTransitioning nonemergency, ambulatory medical care to virtual visits in light of the COVID-19 global pandemic has been a massive shift in philosophy and practice that naturally came with a steep learning curve for patients, physicians, and clinic administrators.ObjectiveWe undertook a multimethod study to understand the key factors associated with successful and less successful experiences of virtual specialist care, particularly as they relate to the patient experience of care.MethodsThis study was designed as a multimethod patient experience study using survey methods, descriptive qualitative interview methodology, and administrative virtual care data collected by the hospital decision support team. Six specialty departments participated in the study (endoscopy, orthopedics, neurology, hematology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology). All patients who could speak and read English and attended a virtual specialist appointment in a participating clinic at St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) between October 1, 2020, and January 30, 2021, were eligible to participate.ResultsDuring the study period, 51,702 virtual specialist visits were conducted in the departments that participated in the study. Of those, 96% were conducted by telephone and 4% by video. In both the survey and interview data, there was an overall consensus that virtual care is a satisfying alternative to in-person care, with benefits such as reduced travel, cost, time, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and increased convenience. Our analysis further revealed that the specific reason for the visit and the nature and status of the medical condition are important considerations in terms of guidance on where virtual care is most effective. Technology issues were not reported as a major challenge in our data, given that the majority of "virtual" visits reported by our participants were conducted by telephone, which is an important distinction. Despite the positive value of virtual care discussed by the majority of interview participants, 50% of the survey respondents still indicated they would prefer to see their physician in person.ConclusionsPatient experience data collected in this study indicate a high level of satisfaction with virtual specialty care, but also signal that there are nuances to be considered to ensure it is an appropriate and sustainable part of the standard of care.