Remote assessment in sport and exercise medicine (SEM): a narrative review and teleSEM solutions for and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forces sport and exercise medicine (SEM) physicians to think differently about the clinical care of patients. Many rapidly implement eHealth and telemedicine solutions specific to SEM without guidance on how best to provide these services. AIM: The aim of this paper is to present some guiding principles on how to plan for and perform an SEM consultation remotely (teleSEM) based on a narrative review of the literature. A secondary aim is to develop a generic teleSEM injury template. RESULTS: eHealth and telemedicine are essential solutions to effective remote patient care, also in SEM. This paper provides guidance for wise planning and delivery of teleSEM. It is crucial for SEM physicians, technology providers and organisations to codesign teleSEM services, ideally involving athletes, coaches and other clinicians involved in the clinical care of athletes, and to gradually implement these services with appropriate support and education. CONCLUSION: teleSEM provides solutions for remote athlete clinical care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. We define two new terms-eSEM and teleSEM and discuss guiding principles on how to plan for and perform SEM consultations remotely (teleSEM). We provide an example of a generic teleSEM injury assessment guide.

Shared decision-making with athletes: a survey study of healthcare professionals' perspectives.

Objectives: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a trending topic in athlete health care; however, little is known about its use in a sports context. This study aimed to measure knowledge and self-perceived practice of SDM among healthcare professionals working with athletes. This study evaluates SDM attitudes and preferences and explores how healthcare professionals perceive the factors influencing SDM. Methods: A web-based cross-sectional survey with open-ended and closed-ended questions. Results: Our survey was completed by 131 healthcare professionals. The majority (63.6%) reported to prefer SDM and to be confident in their SDM skills (81.1%). Despite this inclination and confidence, only one in four clinicians reported consistent practice of SDM when feasible. Additionally, most clinicians lacked SDM knowledge. The barriers perceived by healthcare professionals included time constraints (17.6%), limited patient knowledge (17.6%), limited patient motivation (13.5%) and language barriers (16.2%). Importantly, two-thirds of the participants believed that SDM in athlete health care differs from SDM in non-athletes due to the high-pressure environment, the tension between performance and health, and the involvement of multiple stakeholders with potentially conflicting interests. Conclusions: Although healthcare professionals preferred SDM, they did not fully understand nor routinely practice it. Most healthcare professionals perceive SDM in athlete health care to differ from SDM in the general population. Therefore, to inform the implementation of SDM in athlete health care, future research is crucial to understand better what makes practising SDM unique in this setting.