Background In the era of COVID-19, utilization of telemedicine has dramatically increased. In addition to reduced travel times, patient expenses, and work or school days missed, telemedicine allows clinicians to provide continued care while minimizing face-to-face interactions, maintaining social distancing, and limiting potential COVID-19 exposures. Clinical Immunology and Allergy (CIA), like many specialties, has adapted to incorporate telemedicine into practice. Previous studies have demonstrated similar patient satisfaction between virtual and in-person visits. However, evidence from fully publicly funded health care systems such as Canada has been limited. Methods We performed a quality improvement (QI) initiative to assess the feasibility of telemedicine. Between 1 March and 30 September 2020, patient encounters of two academic allergists at a single institution in London, Ontario, Canada were analyzed. Assessments were categorized into in-person or telemedicine appointments. A random sample of patients assessed virtually completed a voluntary patient satisfaction survey. Qualitative analysis was performed on survey comments. Results In total 3342 patients were seen. The majority were adults (n = 2162, or 64.7%) and female (n = 1872, or 56%). 1543 (46.2%) assessments were virtual and 1799 (53.8%) assessments were in-person. 67 of 100 random patient surveys sent to those in the virtual assessment group were completed. 89.6% (n = 60) agreed or strongly agreed when asked if they were satisfied with their telemedicine visit. 64.2% (n = 43) felt they received the same level of care compared to in-person assessments and 91% (n = 61) stated they would attend another virtual appointment. 95.4% (n = 62) of patients reported saving time with virtual assessment, the majority (n = 42, 62.7%) estimating between 1–4 h saved. Reported shortcomings included technical difficulties, “feeling rushed”, and missing in-person interactions. Conclusions Our quality improvement initiative demonstrated high patient satisfaction and time savings with virtual assessment in a publicly funded health care system. Studies suggest that CIA may be uniquely situated to benefit from permanent integration of virtual care into regular practice for both new and follow-up appointments. We anticipate continued increased utilization of telemedicine, signifying a lasting beneficial change in the delivery of healthcare.

Aim: To determine the safety and efficacy of 0.5 mg intramuscular (IM) epinephrine for the treatment of subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy induced anaphylaxis. Patients & methods: Retrospective chart review of patients who received 0.5 mg of IM epinephrine for treatment of anaphylaxis from subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy at two outpatient allergy and immunology practices. Results: Thirty-eight patients received 0.5 mg IM epinephrine. Eleven patients (29%) required a second dose, and two patients (5%) required a third dose of IM epinephrine. Sixteen patients (42%) were transferred to the emergency department with ongoing symptoms. All had eventual resolution of anaphylaxis. There were no adverse reactions or fatalities. Conclusion: IM epinephrine at a dose of 0.5 mg is safe and effective for treatment of anaphylaxis from subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy.

No abstract