Eighteen years in two days: the next steps for remote consultation in Brazil / Dieciocho años en dos días: los próximos pasos para la consulta remota en Brasil / Dezoito anos em dois dias: os próximos passos para a consulta remota no Brasil

This is an opinion article that aims to support the Disease caused by the New Coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19) post-pandemic regarding the regulation of care through digital resources. Through a literature review, an attempt was made to conceptualize remote consultation and to survey both the historical evolution of technological appropriation by health and the regulation on the subject. Texts covering the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods in Brazil, the United States, the European Union and Australia were evaluated. We tried to highlight the main fallacies, sophisms and dissensions that orbit the theme, as well as the real points where there is a need for greater commitment for decision makers: data security and privacy, reimbursement parity and interstate licensing. It is concluded that the technological appropriation by health has divided the world into at least three segments: those that maintained the autonomy of professionals and patients; those who retarded technological advancement through bureaucracy; and those who forbade advances. The pandemic has generated positive reallocations among these groups and there is a need to refine progress and avoid setbacks.

Este es un artículo de opinión que tiene como objetivo apoyar la discusión pospandémica de la Enfermedad causada por el Nuevo Coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) en cuanto a la regulación de la atención a través de recursos digitales. A través de una revisión de la literatura, se intentó conceptualizar la consulta remota y relevar tanto la evolución histórica de la apropiación tecnológica por parte de la salud como la regulación sobre el tema. Se evaluaron los textos que cubren los períodos prepandémico y pandémico en Brasil, Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y Australia. Intentamos resaltar las principales falacias, sofismas y disensiones que orbitan el tema, así como los puntos reales donde existe la necesidad de un mayor compromiso de los tomadores de decisiones: seguridad y privacidad de los datos, paridad de reembolso y licencias interestatales. Se concluye que la apropiación tecnológica por parte de la salud ha dividido al mundo en al menos tres segmentos: los que mantenían la autonomía de profesionales y pacientes; los que retrasaron el avance tecnológico a través de la burocracia; y los que prohibieron los avances. La pandemia ha generado reasignaciones positivas entre estos grupos y es necesario perfeccionar el progreso y evitar retrocesos.

Este é um artigo de opinião que objetiva subsidiar a discussão pós-pandemia da Doença causada pelo Novo Coronavírus de 2019 (COVID-19) a respeito da regulamentação do atendimento por meio de recursos digitais. Buscou-se, por meio de revisão de literatura, conceituar a consulta remota e fazer um levantamento tanto da evolução histórica da apropriação tecnológica pela saúde como da regulamentação sobre o tema. Foram avaliados textos cobrindo os períodos pré-pandêmico e pandêmico no Brasil, Estados Unidos, União Europeia e Austrália. Procurou-se evidenciar as principais falácias, sofismas e dissensos que orbitam o tema, bem como os reais pontos onde há necessidade de maior empenho para os tomadores de decisão: segurança de dados e privacidade, paridade de reembolso e licenciamento interestadual. Conclui-se que a apropriação tecnológica pela saúde dividiu o mundo em pelo menos três segmentos: os que mantiveram a autonomia de profissionais e pacientes; os que retardaram o avanço tecnológico por meio de burocracia; e os que proibiram os avanços. A pandemia gerou realocações positivas entre esses grupos e existe a necessidade de refinar avanços e evitar retrocessos.

Social Distancing, Mask Use, and Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Brazil, April-June 2020.

We assessed the associations of social distancing and mask use with symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Porto Alegre, Brazil. We conducted a population-based case-control study during April-June 2020. Municipal authorities furnished case-patients, and controls were taken from representative household surveys. In adjusted logistic regression analyses of 271 case-patients and 1,396 controls, those reporting moderate to greatest adherence to social distancing had 59% (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.24-0.70) to 75% (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15-0.42) lower odds of infection. Lesser out-of-household exposure (vs. going out every day all day) reduced odds from 52% (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.77) to 75% (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.18-0.36). Mask use reduced odds of infection by 87% (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.36). In conclusion, social distancing and mask use while outside the house provided major protection against symptomatic infection.

The use of telemedicine to support Brazilian primary care physicians in managing eye conditions: The TeleOftalmo Project.

PURPOSE: To determine whether teleophthalmology can help physicians in assessing and managing eye conditions and to ascertain which clinical conditions can be addressed by teleophthalmology in primary care setting. METHODS: We evaluated the resolution capacity of TeleOftalmo, strategy implemented in the public health system of southern Brazil. Resolution capacity was defined as the ability to fully address patients' eye complaints in primary care with remote assistance from ophthalmologists. Data from tele-eye reports were collected over 14 months. Resolution capacity was compared across different age groups and different ocular conditions. RESULTS: Overall, 8,142 patients had a tele-eye report issued in the study period. Resolution capacity was achieved in 5,748 (70.6%) patients. When stratified into age groups, the lowest capacity was 43.1% among subjects aged ≥65 years, while the highest was 89.7% among subjects aged 13-17 years (p<0.001). Refractive error (70.3%) and presbyopia (56.3%) were the most prevalent conditions followed by cataract (12.4%) and suspected glaucoma (7.6%). Resolution capacity was higher in cases of refractive error, presbyopia, spasm of accommodation and lid disorders than in patients diagnosed with other condition (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: With telemedicine support, primary care physicians solved over two-thirds of patients' eye or vision complaints. Refractive errors had high case resolution rates, thus having a great impact on reducing the number of referrals to specialty care. Teleophthalmology adoption in primary-care settings as part of the workup of patients with eye or vision complaints promotes a more effective use of specialty centers and will hopefully reduce waiting times for specialty referral.