Background Virtual fracture clinics are an alternative to the traditional model of fracture care. Since their introduction in 2011, they have become increasingly used in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) health crisis has driven institutions to examine such innovative solutions to manage patient care. The current controversies include quantifying safety outcomes, such as potential delayed or missed injuries, inadequate treatment, and medicolegal claims. Questions also exist regarding the potential for cost reductions and efficiencies that may be achieved. Physical distancing has limited the number of face-to-face consultations, so this review was conducted to determine if virtual fracture clinics can provide an acceptable alternative in these challenging times. Questions/purposes The aim of this systematic review was to describe (1) adverse outcomes, (2) cost reductions, and (3) efficiencies associated with the virtual fracture clinic model. Methods A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was conducted from database inception to March 2020. The keywords “virtual” or “telemedicine” or “telehealth” or “remote” or “electronic” AND “fracture” or “trauma” or “triage” AND “clinic” or “consultation” were entered, using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria included adults and children treated for injuries by a virtual clinic model at the initial review. Eligible injuries included injuries deemed to not need surgical intervention, and those able to be treated remotely using defined protocols. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients reviewed by telemedicine using video links or in person at the initial review. Initially, 1065 articles were identified, with 665 excluded as they did not relate to virtual fracture clinics. In all, 400 articles were screened for eligibility, and 27 full-text reviews were conducted on 18 studies (30,512 virtual fracture clinic encounters). Three subdomains focusing on adverse outcomes, cost reductions, and efficiencies were recorded. The term adverse outcomes was used to describe any complications, further surgeries, re-referrals back to the clinic, or deviations from the protocols. Efficiency described the number of patients reviewed and discharged using the model, savings in clinic slots, reduced waiting times, or a reduction in consumption of resources such as radiographs. All studies were observational and the quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa tool, which demonstrated a median score of 6 ± 1.8, indicating moderate quality. Results Six studies reported adverse outcomes in detail, with events ranging from inappropriate splinting, deviations from protocols, and one patient underwent an osteotomy for a malunion. Efficiency varied from direct discharge proportions of 18% in early studies to 100% once the virtual fracture clinic model was more established. Cost reductions compared with estimates derived from conventional fracture clinics varied from USD 53 to USD 297 and USD 39,125 to USD 305876 compared with traditional fracture clinic visits. Conclusions Virtual fracture clinics may provide a means to treat patients remotely, using agreed-upon protocols. They have an important role in the current COVID-19 pandemic, due to the possibility to provide ongoing care in an otherwise challenging setting. More robust studies looking at this model of care will be needed to assess its long-term effects on patients, institutions, and health care systems. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx SM ) Tech initiative to support the development and commercialization of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) point-of-care test devices. The primary objective of the Clinical Studies Core (CSC) was to perform SARS-CoV-2 device studies involving diverse populations and settings. Within a few months, the infrastructure for clinical studies was developed, including a master protocol, digital study platform, data management system, single IRB, and multi-site partnerships. Data from some studies are being used to support Emergency Use Authorization of novel SARS-CoV-2 test devices. The CSC reduced the typical time and cost of developing medical devices and highlighted the impactful role of academic and NIH partnership in addressing public health needs at a rapid pace during a global pandemic. The structure, deployment, and lessons learned from this experience are widely applicable to future in vitro diagnostic device clinical studies.

No abstract

Large observational data networks that leverage routine clinical practice data in electronic health records (EHRs) are critical resources for research on COVID-19. Data normalization is a key challenge for the secondary use of EHRs for COVID-19 research across institutions. In this study, we addressed the challenge of automating the normalization of COVID-19 diagnostic tests, which are critical data elements, but for which controlled terminology terms were published after clinical implementation. We developed a simple but effective rule-based tool called COVID-19 TestNorm to automatically normalize local COVID-19 testing names to standard LOINC codes. COVID-19 TestNorm was developed and evaluated using 568 test names collected from eight healthcare systems. Our results show that it could achieve an accuracy of 97.4% on an independent test set. COVID-19 TestNorm is available as an open-source package for developers and as an online web application for end-users (https://clamp.uth.edu/covid/loinc.php). We believe it will be a useful tool to support secondary use of EHRs for research on COVID-19.

Background The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic necessitates the development of accurate, rapid, and affordable diagnostics to help curb disease transmission, morbidity, and mortality. Rapid antigen tests are important tools for scaling up testing for SARS-CoV-2; however, little is known about individuals’ use of rapid antigen tests at home and how to facilitate the user experience. Objective This study aimed to describe the feasibility and acceptability of serial self-testing with rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2, including need for assistance and the reliability of self-interpretation. Methods A total of 206 adults in the United States with smartphones were enrolled in this single-arm feasibility study in February and March 2021. All participants were asked to self-test for COVID-19 at home using rapid antigen tests daily for 14 days and use a smartphone app for testing assistance and to report their results. The main outcomes were adherence to the testing schedule, the acceptability of testing and smartphone app experiences, and the reliability of participants versus study team’s interpretation of test results. Descriptive statistics were used to report the acceptability, adherence, overall rating, and experience of using the at-home test and MyDataHelps app. The usability, acceptability, adherence, and quality of at-home testing were analyzed across different sociodemographic, age, and educational attainment groups. Results Of the 206 enrolled participants, 189 (91.7%) and 159 (77.2%) completed testing and follow-up surveys, respectively. In total, 51.3% (97/189) of study participants were women, the average age was 40.7 years, 34.4% (65/189) were non-White, and 82% (155/189) had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Most (n=133/206, 64.6%) participants showed high testing adherence, meaning they completed over 75% of the assigned tests. Participants’ interpretations of test results demonstrated high agreement (2106/2130, 98.9%) with the study verified results, with a κ score of 0.29 (P<.001). Participants reported high satisfaction with self-testing and the smartphone app, with 98.7% (157/159) reporting that they would recommend the self-test and smartphone app to others. These results were consistent across age, race/ethnicity, and gender. Conclusions Participants’ high adherence to the recommended testing schedule, significant reliability between participants and study staff’s test interpretation, and the acceptability of the smartphone app and self-test indicate that self-tests for SARS-CoV-2 with a smartphone app for assistance and reporting is a highly feasible testing modality among a diverse population of adults in the United States.

A logging procedure is described which utilizes n comparison of two logs of the ;same type to define a reservoir property "-' or condition of interest. [interpretation is baked on a ' natural or hrduced change in reservoir coqdition~durhtg the lapse occurring between the time the two logs are rttn. 'In, a gas injection project jn a wet" . . gas reservoir, a comparison of neutron I logs ru~before and after, three months of dry gas injection accurately de-. /ined the zones of g~entry in an iniection-:we[L Electric and neutron iogs tkn before at@' after gas injection "in a water-bearing formation were used to define tbe zone~of. injection and the ,magnitude of gas saturation' developed. Finally, in a pressure dep!eted reservoir, electric and neupon, logs" run before and" after "wtiter i~iection. were used to uompute the oil, water and &as saturations of the jortnation prior to wat~r injection. A .Iist oj, other, possible applications of this htgging procedure is. @resented,...-

Objective: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are used to measure the health benefits associated with treatments. QALYs are derived from objective mortality data weighted by assessments made by the general population of the impact on health-related quality of life associated with particular health states. In this study, a simple change is introduced to improve the validity of QALYs by giving raters information about how people living in the health states rate the health states. Method: Participants from the general population (N = 155) judged 3 health states using a standard valuation technique after being randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups. The intervention group was given patients’ mean ratings of their own health states from worst to best imaginable health (0–100 scale) before providing their valuations, while the control group was given this information only after providing their valuations. The participants in both groups also indicated whether patients’ mean ratings were higher, broadly similar, or lower than they previously expected. Results: When the mean ratings given by patients were higher (lower) than expected, participants in the intervention group provided significantly higher (lower) valuations than participants in the control group. These findings show that participants adjust their valuations of a health state in the direction of the appraisals of those experiencing that state. Conclusion: Insofar as policymakers are committed to valuing health states using valuations given by people from the general population, it is desirable to elicit more informed values by providing people with information on how patients rate those states.

No abstract