Background The worldwide burden of musculoskeletal diseases is increasing. The number of newly registered rheumatologists has stagnated. Primary care, which takes up a key role in early detection of rheumatic disease, is working at full capacity. COVID-19 and its containment impede rheumatological treatment. Telemedicine in rheumatology (telerheumatology) could support rheumatologists and general practitioners. Objective The goal of this study was to investigate acceptance and preferences related to the use of telerheumatology care among German rheumatologists and general practitioners. Methods A nationwide, cross-sectional, self-completed, paper-based survey on telerheumatology care was conducted among outpatient rheumatologists and general practitioners during the pre-COVID-19 period. Results A total of 73.3% (349/476) of survey participants rated their knowledge of telemedicine as unsatisfactory, poor, or very poor. The majority of survey participants (358/480, 74.6%) answered that they do not currently use telemedicine, although 62.3% (291/467) would like to. Barriers to the implementation of telemedicine include the purchase of technology equipment (182/292, 62.3%), administration (181/292, 62.0%), and poor reimbursement (156/292, 53.4%). A total of 69.6% (117/168) of the surveyed physicians reckoned that telemedicine could be used in rheumatology. Surveyed physicians would prefer to use telemedicine to communicate directly with other physicians (370/455, 81.3%) than to communicate with patients (213/455, 46.8%). Among treatment phases, 64.4% (291/452) of participants would choose to use telemedicine during follow-up. Half of the participants would choose telecounseling as a specific approach to improve rheumatology care (91/170, 53.5%). Conclusions Before COVID-19 appeared, our results indicated generally low use but high acceptance of the implementation of telerheumatology among physicians. Participants indicated that the lack of a structural framework was a barrier to the effective implementation of telerheumatology. Training courses should be introduced to address the limited knowledge on the part of physicians in the use of telemedicine. More research into telerheumatology is required. This includes large-scale randomized controlled trials, economic analyses, and the exploration of user preferences.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to drastic changes in the management of patients with rheumatic diseases. Due to the imminent risk of infection, monitoring intervals of rheumatic patients have prolonged. The aim of this study is to present insights from patients, rheumatologists, and digital product developers on the ongoing digital health transition in rheumatology. A qualitative and participatory semi-structured fishbowl approach was conducted to gain detailed insights from a total of 476 participants. The main findings show that digital health and remote care are generally welcomed by the participants. Five key themes emerged from the qualitative content analysis: (1) digital rheumatology use cases, (2) user descriptions, (3) adaptation to different environments of rheumatology care, and (4) potentials of and (5) barriers to digital rheumatology implementation. Codes were scaled by positive and negative ratings as well as on micro, meso, and macro levels. A main recommendation resulting from the insights is that both patients and rheumatologists need more information and education to successfully implement digital health tools into clinical routine.

Despite all its promises, telemedicine is still not widely implemented in the care of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The aim of this study is to investigate opportunities, barriers, acceptance, and preferences concerning telemedicine among RMD patients and professional stakeholders. From November 2017 to December 2019, a participatory, mixed-methods study was conducted, consisting of (1) expert interviews (n = 27) with RMD patients and professional stakeholders, (2) a national paper-based patient survey (n = 766), and (3) focus groups (n = 2) with patient representatives and rheumatologists. The qualitative findings indicate that patients equate personal contact with physical face-to-face contact, which could be reduced by implementing telemedicine, thus negatively influencing the patient–doctor relationship. Correspondingly “no personal contact with the doctor” is the main reason (64%) why 38% of the surveyed patients refuse to try telemedicine. Professional stakeholders expect telemedicine to contribute to the effective allocation of scarce resources in rheumatology care. The main barriers reported by stakeholders were the scarcity of time resources in RMD care, the absence of physical examinations, and organizational challenges associated with the implementation of telemedicine in RMD care. While the exact integration of telemedicine into routine care has yet to be found, the consequences on the patient-physician relationship must be permanently considered.

Introduction: This study examines the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient care in the German federal state of Brandenburg during the first 'lockdown' between 22 March and 4 May 2020, focusing on the burden for physicians and psychotherapists in outpatient practices and on alternative ways to provide care, in particular telehealth. Methods: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey among outpatient health care professionals. The responses of n = 277 physicians and n = 87 psychotherapists were included in the analysis. Frequencies are shown; the relationship between categorical variables was examined using the 2 test; we used a qualitative content analysis for free text answers. Results: Almost all (96 %) physicians and 59 % of the psychotherapists reported a patient volume reduction since the COVID-19 outbreak. Cancellations were most often initiated by patients rather than physician offices. Among the physicians, routine check-ups and preventive care consultations were cancelled most frequently, and patients also appeared less frequently in open consultations. 72 % of the physicians and 29 % of the psychotherapists reported economic losses. While personal patient-physician contact was reduced, the use of telehealth has increased since the COVID-19 outbreak: during the first 'lockdown',

IntroductionAn increasing number of digital tools, including dedicated diagnostic decision support systems (DDSS) exist to better assess new symptoms and understand when and where to seek medical care. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient's previous online assessment experiences and to compare the acceptability, usability, usefulness and potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI)-based symptom checker (Ada) and an online questionnaire-based self-referral tool (Rheport).Materials and MethodsPatients newly presenting to three German secondary rheumatology outpatient clinics were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to complete consecutively Ada or Rheport in a prospective non-blinded multicentre controlled crossover randomized trial. DDSS completion time was recorded by local study personnel and perceptions on DDSS and previous online assessment were collected through a self-completed study questionnaire, including usability measured with the validated System Usability Scale (SUS).Results600 patients (median age 52 years, 418 women) were included. 277/600 (46.2%) of patients used an online search engine prior to the appointment. The median time patients spent assessing symptoms was 180, 7, and 8 min, respectively using online using search engines, Ada and Rheport. 111/275 (40.4%), 266/600 (44.3%) and 395/600 (65.8%) of patients rated the respective symptom assessment as very helpful or helpful, using online search engines, Ada and Rheport, respectively. Usability of both diagnostic decision support systems (DDSS) was “good” with a significantly higher mean SUS score (SD) of Rheport 77.1/100 (16.0) compared to Ada 74.4/100 (16.8), (p < 0.0001). In male patients, usability of Rheport was rated higher than Ada (p = 0.02) and the usability rating of older (52 years ≥) patients of both DDSS was lower than in younger participants (p = 0.005). Both effects were independent of each other. 440/600 (73.3%) and 475/600 (79.2%) of the patients would recommend Ada and Rheport to friends and other patients, respectively.ConclusionIn summary, patients increasingly assess their symptoms independently online, however only a minority used dedicated symptom assessment websites or DDSS. DDSS, such as Ada an Rheport are easy to use, well accepted among patients with musculoskeletal complaints and could replace online search engines for patient symptom assessment, potentially saving time and increasing helpfulness.

Zusammenfassung Ziel Untersucht werden die Bedingungen und Hürden der Einführung von Stationsäquivalenter Behandlung nach § 115d SGB V (StäB). Methode Qualitative Analyse von Interviews und Fokusgruppen mit Mitarbeitenden (n = 43) an 11 psychiatrischen Kliniken in Berlin/Brandenburg. Ergebnisse Auf Systemebene wird die Implementierung u. a. durch eine inadäquate Leistungsdefinition, fehlende Vorgaben auf Landesebene, Personalmangel und MDK-Prüfungen erschwert. Dies führt bei Kliniken zu zurückhaltender Umsetzung mit teilweise unzureichender personeller Ausstattung der StäB-Teams. Weitere Barrieren betreffen das Fehlen mobiler Lösungen zur Dokumentation und Teamkommunikation. Auf Ebene der Mitarbeitenden wirken sich ein Mangel an Information und Kooperation sowie unklare Aufgaben und Rollen hinderlich aus. Schlussfolgerungen Für eine bedürfnisorientierte, flexible und flächendeckende Einführung von StäB sind Nachbesserungen an den Rahmenbedingungen sowie weitere Forschung zur Wirksamkeit und Implementierung notwendig.

Zusammenfassung Der Ausbruch der COVID-19-Pandemie geht mit tief greifenden Einschnitten im Alltag und im Berufsleben einher – sowohl gesamtgesellschaftlich als auch speziell im Gesundheitswesen. Im Fokus der Pandemieeindämmung haben sich vielerorts rheumatologische Routineabläufe verändert. Um den entsprechenden Infektionsschutz der Patienten und des medizinischen Personals gewährleisten zu können, wurde hier verstärkt Telemedizin (insbesondere Telefon- und Videosprechstunde) eingesetzt. Weiterhin stehen durch die Digitale-Gesundheitsanwendungen-Verordnung (DiGAV) voraussichtlich in den kommenden Monaten neue, abrechnungsfähige telemedizinische Anwendungsmöglichkeiten wie Apps und Wearables zur Verfügung. Der Artikel soll einen Überblick über telemedizinische Versorgungsmöglichkeiten in der Rheumatologie (mit besonderem Fokus auf die Videosprechstunde) geben. Weiterhin wird Bezug auf die vorhandene Evidenzlage sowie Chancen und Limitation der Telemedizin im Fachgebiet genommen.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to transformations in healthcare infrastructures and increased use of (innovative) telemedicine (TM) tools. Comparison of the use of video consultation (VC) in rheumatology in the pre-pandemic period and during the pandemic might allow for evaluating this new form of consultancy in healthcare due to changing conditions and possibilities.Materials and methodsCross-sectional nationwide online survey among German rheumatologists and rheumatologists in training between March and May 2021 promoted by newsletters and Twitter posts.ResultsResults refer to 205 participants. The majority was male (59%), older than 40 years (90%). Thirty-eight percent stated to have employed TM before (“digital users”), 27% were using VC as part of their TM expertise (“VC-users”), 10% stated to have experience with TM but not VC (“TM-users”). Those negating the use of any TM (62%) were designated as “digital non-users.” TM-Knowledge was self-rated as 4 [median on a Likert Scale 1 (very high) to 6 (very low)] with a significant difference between digital users (VC-user 2.7 ± 1.2, TM-user 3.2 ± 1.1) and digital non-users (4.4 ± 1.3). The reported significant increase of VC use during the lockdown periods and between the lockdowns compared to the pre-pandemic phase was regarded as a proxy for VC acceptance in the pandemic. Reasons for VC non-use were administrative/technical efforts (21%), lack of technical equipment (15%), time constraints (12%), time required for individual VC sessions (12%), inadequate reimbursement (11%), lack of demand from patients (11%), data security concerns (9%), poor internet connection (8%), and lack of scientific evaluation/evidence (5%). Physicians considered the following clinical situations to be particularly suitable for VC: follow-up visits (VC-user 79%, TM-user 62%, digital non-user 47%), emergency consultations (VC-user 20%, TM-user 33%, digital non-user 20%), and patients presenting for the first time (VC-user 11%, TM-user 19%, digital non-user 8%).ConclusionEven though the pandemic situation, with social distancing and several lockdowns, provides an ideal environment for the implementation of new remote care forms as VC, its use and acceptance remained comparatively low due to multiple reasons. This analysis may help identify hurdles in employing innovative digital care models for rheumatologic healthcare.