Effectiveness of remote care interventions: a systematic review informing the 2022 EULAR Points to Consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) on different outcomes of remote care compared with face-to-face (F2F) care, its implementation into clinical practice and to identify drivers and barriers in order to inform a task force formulating the EULAR Points to Consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: A search strategy was developed and run in Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently performed standardised data extraction, synthesis and risk of bias (RoB) assessment. RESULTS: A total of 2240 references were identified. Forty-seven of them fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Remote monitoring (n=35) was most frequently studied, with telephone/video calls being the most common mode of delivery (n=30). Of the 34 studies investigating outcomes of remote care, the majority addressed efficacy and user perception; 34% and 21% of them, respectively, reported a superiority of remote care as compared with F2F care. Time and cost savings were reported as major benefits, technical aspects as major drawback in the 13 studies that investigated drivers and barriers of remote care. No study addressed remote care implementation. The main limitation of the studies identified was the heterogeneity of outcomes and methods, as well as a substantial RoB (50% of studies with high RoB). CONCLUSIONS: Remote care leads to similar or better results compared with F2F treatment concerning efficacy, safety, adherence and user perception outcomes, with the limitation of heterogeneity and considerable RoB of the available studies.

2022 EULAR points to consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: Remote care and telehealth have the potential to expand healthcare access, and the COVID-19 pandemic has called for alternative solutions to conventional face-to-face follow-up and monitoring. However, guidance is needed on the integration of telehealth into clinical care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD). OBJECTIVE: To develop EULAR points to consider (PtC) for the development, prioritisation and implementation of telehealth for people with RMD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary EULAR task force (TF) of 30 members from 14 European countries was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for development of PtC were followed. A systematic literature review was conducted to support the TF in formulating the PtC. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtC were formulated. The use of telehealth should be tailored to patient's needs and preferences. The healthcare team should have adequate equipment and training and have telecommunication skills. Telehealth can be used in screening for RMD as preassessment in the referral process, for disease monitoring and regulation of medication dosages and in some non-pharmacological interventions. People with RMD should be offered training in using telehealth, and barriers should be resolved whenever possible.The level of agreement to each statement ranged from 8.5 to 9.8/10. CONCLUSION: The PtC have identified areas where telehealth could improve quality of care and increase healthcare access. Knowing about drivers and barriers of telehealth is a prerequisite to successfully establish remote care approaches in rheumatologic clinical practice.

Future challenges in rheumatology - is telemedicine the solution?

The COVID-19 pandemic has become an unprecedented facilitator of rapid telehealth expansion within rheumatology. Due to demographic shifts and workforce shortages in the future, new models of rheumatology care will be expected to emerge, with a growing footprint of telehealth interventions. Telehealth is already being used to monitor patients with rheumatic diseases and initial studies show good results in terms of safety and disease progression. It is being used as a tool for appointment prioritization and triage, and there is good evidence for using telehealth in rehabilitation, patient education and self-management interventions. Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) offer a number of long-term benefits and opportunities, and a routine collection of ePROs also facilitates epidemiological research that can inform future healthcare delivery. Telehealth solutions should be developed in close collaboration with all stakeholders, and the option of a telehealth visit must not deprive patients of the possibility to make use of a conventional 'face-to-face' visit. Future studies should especially focus on optimal models for rheumatology healthcare delivery to patients living in remote areas who are unable to use or access computer technology, and other patient groups at risk for disparity due to technical inequity and lack of knowledge.

Health Care Workers not in the frontline are more frequently carriers of Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Experience of a Tertiary Portuguese Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) have a high risk of infection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially those treating patients with confirmed or suspected diagnosis (front-line). AIM: To evaluate the incidence and prevalence of the COVID-19 infection among HCWs and to analyse the risk factors and the clinical characteristics among infected ones. METHODS: Observational, retrospective, single-center study (Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Portugal). Data were collected from March 1 to June 30, 2020. FINDINGS: Overall, 211 (2.63%) out of 8037 HCWs were diagnosed with COVID-19. Most of the infections occurred during the early stage of disease outbreak. Among the infected HCWs, only 20.9% (n=44) were from the front-line. Both front-line and non-front-line HCWs were exposed primarily to patients (48.6% in both groups), but the non-front-line were (presumably) more infected by colleagues (10.8% vs 24.8%, P=0.04). Front-line HCWs performed more family isolation than non-front-line (88.9% vs 82.5%, P>0.05) and presumably less family members were infected in the former group (19.4% vs 26.3%, P>0.05). The proportion of HCWs with asymptomatic infection was statistically significantly lower in the front-line group (2.4% vs 19.9%, P=0.05). CONCLUSION: The prevention and control actions implemented were effective in mitigating the COVID-19 outbreak; HCW infections occurred mainly in the early stages. Non-front -line HCWs were at a higher risk, warranting specific attention and interventions targeting this group.