Telemedicine for Patients with COVID-19: A Telehealth Experience in the Elderly at a Center in Southern Brazil.

Background: Telemedicine has shown benefits in continuous care during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article discusses its practice in elderly patients with COVID-19, considering its limitations and benefits. Methods: Patients with COVID-19, aged 60 years or older, were followed up through phone calls three times a week for 10 days at the Telemedicine Section of the Clinical Center of the University of Caxias do Sul (UCS) in the south of Brazil. The outcomes evaluated were referrals to hospital, basic health unit (BHU)/emergency care unit (ECU), and psychology and physiotherapy services; instructions about vaccination, isolation period, tests for COVID-19, taking a specific medication, and measuring oxygen saturation; guidance to family members; and avoiding going to hospitals. Results: A total of 64 patients were followed up, the mean age was 69.28 years and 15.62% had at least one comorbidity. Among the patients, 7.81% were instructed about the vaccine, 23.43% about post-diagnostic tests, 25% about medication, 62.5% about isolation, 31.35% received guidance on saturation monitoring and 28.12% received guidance for family members, and 3.12% were referred to the hospital and 7.81% to the BHU/ECU (n = 5/64). Physiotherapy and psychology services were indicated for 4.68% of patients each, hospital visits were avoided in 31.25% and 93.75% recommended telemonitoring. Discussion: In this experience, it is suggested that the telehealth service maximizes patient care and the health care effectiveness for patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, the sample studied showed good adherence and suggested the need for more guidance than face-to-face consultation.

Patients' preferences regarding physicians' gender: a clinical center cross-sectional study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Even with the significant growth of female representation within medicine, inequality and prejudice against this group persist. OBJECTIVE: To analyze patients' preferences regarding the gender of physicians in general and according to different specialties, and the possible reasons behind their choice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study at the Clinical Center of the University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil. METHODS: Over a three-month period in 2020, 1,016 patients were asked to complete a paper-based 11-item questionnaire. RESULTS: The majority (81.7%; n = 830) of the patients did not have a preference regarding the gender of physicians in general. The preference rate for same-gender physicians was 14.0% (n = 142/1,016), and this preference was more common among female than among male patients (17.6% versus 7.0%; odds ratio, OR = 2.85; 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.80-4.52; P < 0.001). When asked about their preference for the gender of the specialist who they were waiting to see, the overall preference rate for a same-gender professional was 17.2% (n = 175). Preference for same-gender specialists was higher for specialties essentially based on pelvic or breast examination (i.e. gynecology, urology, proctology and mastology), compared with others (33.4% versus 9.7%; OR = 4.69; 95% CI = 3.33-6.61; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The patients' model for choice of their physician does not seem to involve physicians' gender in general or in the majority of medical specialties. The data presented in this study may make it easier to understand patients' preferences and concerns.

Patients' preferences regarding physicians' gender: a clinical center cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Even with the significant growth of female representation within medicine, inequality and prejudice against this group persist. OBJECTIVE: To analyze patients' preferences regarding the gender of physicians in general and according to different specialties, and the possible reasons behind their choice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study at the Clinical Center of the University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil. METHODS: Over a three-month period in 2020, 1,016 patients were asked to complete a paper-based 11-item questionnaire. RESULTS: The majority (81.7%; n = 830) of the patients did not have a preference regarding the gender of physicians in general. The preference rate for same-gender physicians was 14.0% (n = 142/1,016), and this preference was more common among female than among male patients (17.6% versus 7.0%; odds ratio, OR = 2.85; 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.80-4.52; P < 0.001). When asked about their preference for the gender of the specialist who they were waiting to see, the overall preference rate for a same-gender professional was 17.2% (n = 175). Preference for same-gender specialists was higher for specialties essentially based on pelvic or breast examination (i.e. gynecology, urology, proctology and mastology), compared with others (33.4% versus 9.7%; OR = 4.69; 95% CI = 3.33-6.61; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The patients' model for choice of their physician does not seem to involve physicians' gender in general or in the majority of medical specialties. The data presented in this study may make it easier to understand patients' preferences and concerns.