Background The rise of COVID-19 and the issue of a mandatory stay-at-home order in March 2020 led to the use of a direct-to-consumer model for cardiology telehealth in Kentucky. Kentucky has poor health outcomes and limited broadband connectivity. Given these and other practice-specific constraints, the region serves as a unique context to explore the efficacy of telehealth in cardiology. Objective This study aims to determine the limitations of telehealth accessibility, patient satisfaction with telehealth relative to in-person visits, and the perceived advantages and disadvantages to telehealth. Our intent was two-fold. First, we wanted to conduct a rapid postassessment of the mandated overhaul of the health care delivery system, focusing on a representative specialty field, and how it was affecting patients. Second, we intend to use our findings to make suggestions about the future application of a telehealth model in specialty fields such as cardiology. Methods We constructed an online survey in Qualtrics following the Patient Assessment of Communication During Telemedicine, a patient self-report questionnaire that has been previously developed and validated. We invited all patients who had a visit scheduled during the COVID-19 telehealth-only time frame to participate. Questions included factors for declining telehealth, patient satisfaction ratings of telehealth and in-person visits, and perceived advantages and disadvantages associated with telehealth. We also used electronic medical records to collect no-show data for in-person versus telehealth visits to check for nonresponse bias. Results A total of 224 respondents began our survey (11% of our sample of 2019 patients). Our recruitment rate was 86% (n=193) and our completion rate was 62% (n=120). The no-show rate for telehealth visits (345/2019, 17%) was nearly identical to the typical no-show rate for in-person appointments. Among the 32 respondents who declined a telehealth visit, 20 (63%) cited not being aware of their appointment as a primary factor, and 15 (47%) respondents cited their opinion that a telehealth appointment was not medically necessary as at least somewhat of a factor in their decision. Both in-person and telehealth were viewed favorably, but in-person was rated higher across all domains of patient satisfaction. The only significantly lower mean score for telehealth (3.7 vs 4.2, P=.007) was in the clinical competence domain. Reduced travel time, lower visit wait time, and cost savings were seen as big advantages. Poor internet connectivity was rated as at least somewhat of a factor by 33.0% (35/106) of respondents. Conclusions This study takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by the COVID-19 pandemic to assess the efficacy of telehealth in cardiology. Patterns of satisfaction are consistent across modalities and show that telehealth appears to be a viable alternative to in-person appointments. However, we found evidence that scheduling of telehealth visits may be problematic and needs additional attention. Additionally, we include a note of caution that patient satisfaction with telehealth may be artificially inflated during COVID-19 due to external health concerns connected with in-person visits.
The pandemic of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease has caused an unprecedented mobilization of the United States' healthcare workforce. In addition to working extended hours under increased duress, healthcare professionals (HCP) of all stations have been making use of various types of personal protective equipment (PPE) with greatly increased frequency and duration. Current data regarding adverse skin reactions as a possible consequence of PPE use are, particularly in the United States, largely insufficient for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding daily PPE use among HCP.The research vehicle employed by this study is a cross-sectional 25-item survey distributed via email to workers currently employed by a five-hospital system in southcentral Kentucky. This survey was used to collect information from hospital workers of all professional roles about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on reports of adverse dermatological reactions and associated risk factors.Out of 879 respondents, 54.4% reported some type of skin irritation reaction. Skin irritation was significantly more prevalent among medical and medical support staff than non-medical hospital workers, with the highest prevalence among Certified Nurse Assistant (CNAs). Among clinical workers, those in dedicated COVID-19 units reported the highest prevalence of adverse skin reaction. The most common complaint was dryness/scaling of the skin (306 out of 439, 69.7%), and the most common location was the facial cheeks (305 out of 516, 59.1%). Among those who reported skin irritation, the average self-reported severity of skin reaction (on a scale of 1-5) was 2.00 ± 0.05, and the mean total days of skin reaction per month was 11.70 ± 0.39 days. Total days of irritation per month was found to be significantly related to "total days of PPE use per month," "hours of PPE use per day," "frequency of hand washing," and "use of disinfecting UV irradiation." Severity of skin reaction was found to be significantly related to "hours per day of PPE use," "consecutive days of PPE use," and "female sex."Clinical workers that put in the most face-to-face time with patients, and those in dedicated COVID-19 units, had the highest risk of adverse skin reaction. Overall, skin reactions were found to be mild, even in those hospital workers with the heaviest PPE use. Because the widespread and consistent use of facial masks in public settings has become a key tool in our protracted struggle with SARS-CoV-2, these findings may help to ameliorate concerns that everyday facial mask and/or other PPE usage contributes to significant dermatologic morbidity among both medical professionals and public citizens.Abbreviations: CDC = centers for disease control and prevention, CNA = certified nurse assistant, COVID-19 = 2019 novel coronavirus disease, HCP = health care professionals, PPE = personal protective equipment, UVGI = ultraviolet germicidal irradiation.
We present the case of a patient with giant coronary artery aneurysm. He has underlying severe coronary atherosclerosis and concomitant aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and popliteal artery. Our patient was treated surgically in the past due to underlying severe atherosclerosis. Despite bypass, his coronary aneurysms continued to enlarge. There is a lack of randomized trials regarding management to guide the decision-making process. Our case describes the work-up and treatment of a patient with giant coronary artery aneurysm requiring urgent orthopedic surgery.
Background: Paradoxical embolism is a rare event and the exact contribution of patent foramen ovale in stroke is unclear. Intracardiac thrombi or 'embolus-in-transit' are associated with high mortality. Acutely elevated pulmonary arterial pressure due to pulmonary embolism or Valsalva maneuver make foramen ovale patent and promote right to left migration of intraatrial clot. A large thrombus trapped during its passage produces impending paradoxical embolism, which though proposed, is documented very rarely in live patients. This is a high-risk situation. Surgical embolectomy, like our case, has shown to have better outcomes in overall patient survival. Case: A 66-year-old female with acute left main cerebral artery infarct and acute bilateral pulmonary embolism. In initial assessment, lower extremities venous Doppler study revealed left leg deep venous thrombosis and transthoracic echocardiogram showed a long biatrial clot straddling through patent foramen ovale and a right-to-left interatrial shunt. After heparinization and inferior vena caval filter placement, she underwent successful surgical embolectomy along with closure of patent foramen ovale with subsequent uneventful recovery. Conclusion: 'Embolus in transit' is a high-risk situation and should be actively searched for in patients of pulmonary embolism and stroke. We recommend surgical embolectomy over other treatment modalities in such situations.
Electrocardiographic (ECG) findings in patients admitted with COVID-19 and a decision tree to predict their survival were assessed. 145 consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 infection were selected. Patient demographics, ECG variables, peak troponins, use of standard medications, and clinical outcomes were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and a predictive model of survival was developed using classification tree analysis. Of the 145 admitted patients, 38 (26%) died. Deceased patients were more likely to have a significantly higher incidence of poor R-Wave progression [6 of 37 (16.2%) Vs. 0 of 104 (0%), p < 0.001] as well as prolonged QTc values [24 of 37 (64.9%) Vs. 38 of 99 (38.4%), p 0.006]. Significant ST segment depressions were found in 5 of 37 (13.5%) of the deceased category compared to 0% in the non-deceased (p < 0.01). Right and/or left atrial enlargement was more prevalent in the deceased cohort [7 of 37 (18.9%) Vs. 4 of 104 (3.8%), p = 0.03]. Bundle branch blocks were more prevalent in the deceased group [9 of 35 (25.8%) Vs. 7 of 104 (6.7%), p 0.002]. Peak troponins were significantly higher in the deceased group (1.0 Vs 0.07 ng/ml, p < 0.001) A prediction tree built utilizing age, PACs, troponins and QTc had an accuracy of 85.5%. 65 of 74 patients (87.8%) were correctly predicted to survive, while 23 of 29 (79.3%) were correctly predicted to become deceased. Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the parameters of age, QT interval, troponin and PACs are useful for prognostication and help predict survival with reasonable accuracy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.