RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Although the COVID-19 pandemic spurred telehealth adoption for many specialties and care team roles, the patient and caregiver experience for telepharmacy visits has been relatively understudied. To our knowledge, there is a paucity of studies that have attempted to qualitatively evaluate this. This study aimed to qualitatively assess the patient and caregiver experience of telepharmacy visits in a cancer center. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 patients with cancer and seven caregivers that had attended a telepharmacy visit between December 1, 2021, and May 24, 2022. The interviews assessed visit content, overall satisfaction, system experience, visit quality, and future preferences for pharmacy visits as telehealth versus in-person. We used both deductive and inductive coding to identify themes. RESULTS: Telepharmacy delivery was generally well-received. Reasons for having the telepharmacy visit included reviewing chemotherapy procedures, side effects to expect during treatment, providing education on recently prescribed medications, offering dietary recommendations (e.g., avoiding grapefruit juice), and performing medication reconciliation. Participants were receptive to having pharmacy visits through telehealth due to the perceived lack of a need to have a physical exam and prior relationship with the pharmacist. Participants also highlighted the main reason for the telepharmacy visits was primarily to provide patient education, which participants felt was suitable for telehealth. CONCLUSIONS: The patient and caregiver experience of telepharmacy is influenced by several factors, such as ease of connectivity, communicating effectively with the pharmacist, and timing of the telepharmacy visit (e.g., immediately after picking up medications from the pharmacy). Participants' recommendations to improve telepharmacy delivery included health systems raising awareness of telepharmacy services and providing a list of questions to patients to guide discussions.
RESUMO
Passive leg raising is a simple diagnostic maneuver that has been proposed as a measure of arterial vasodilator reserve and possibly endothelial function. While passive leg raising has previously been shown to lower blood pressure, increase flow velocity and cause brachial artery dilation, its effects on microvascular flow has not been well studied. Also, passive leg raising has been directly compared previously to upper arm but never to lower arm occlusion of blood flow induced hyperemia responses. We compared changes in macrovascular indices measured by brachial artery ultrasound and microvascular perfusion measured by Laser Doppler Flowmetry induced by passive leg raising to those provoked by upper arm and lower arm induced hyperemia in healthy subjects. Upper arm induced hyperemia increased mean flow velocity by 398%, induced brachial artery dilatation by 16.3%, and increased microvascular perfusion by 246% (p<.05 for all). Lower arm induced hyperemia increased flow velocity by 227%, induced brachial artery dilatation by 10.8%, and increased microvascular perfusion by 281%. Passive leg raising increased flow velocity by 29% and brachial artery dilatation by 5.6% (p<.05 for all), but did not change microvascular perfusion (-5%, p=ns). In conclusion, passive leg raising increases flow velocity orders of magnitude less than does upper arm or lower arm induced hyperemia. Passive leg raising-induced brachial artery dilatation is less robust than either of these hyperemic techniques. Finally, although upper arm and lower arm hyperemia elicits macrovascular and microvascular responses, passive leg raising elicits only macrovascular responses.