ABSTRACT
INTRODUCCIÓN: La telemedicina ofrece un soporte clínico remoto utilizando herramientas tecnológicas. Puede facilitar la atención médica al tiempo que reduce las visitas innecesarias a la consulta. La pandemia COVID-19 ha provocado un cambio brusco en nuestra práctica urológica diaria convirtiéndose en algo muy necesario el acto de la teleconsulta. OBJETIVO: Proporcionar recomendaciones prácticas para el uso efectivo de herramientas tecnológicas en telemedicina. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda en la literatura en la plataforma Medline hasta abril de 2020; seleccionamos los artículos más relevantes relacionados con «telemedicina» y «trabajo inteligente» que podrían proporcionar información útil. RESULTADOS: La telemedicina se refiere al uso de la información electrónica y a las herramientas de telecomunicaciones para proporcionar apoyo clínico remoto a la atención médica. El trabajo inteligente es un modelo de trabajo que utiliza tecnologías nuevas o existentes para mejorar el rendimiento. La telemedicina se está convirtiendo en una herramienta útil y necesaria durante la pandemia COVID-19 e incluso más allá de la misma. Es hora de que formalicemos y demos el lugar que se merece a la telemedicina en nuestra práctica clínica y es nuestra responsabilidad adaptar y conocer todas las herramientas y posibles estrategias para su implementación de una manera óptima, garantizar una atención de calidad a los pacientes y que dicha atención sea percibida por pacientes y familiares como de alto nivel. CONCLUSIONES: La telemedicina facilita la atención clínica urológica especializada a distancia y resuelve problemas como las limitaciones en la movilidad o el traslado de los pacientes, reduce las visitas innecesarias a las clínicas y es útil para reducir el riesgo de transmisión viral de la COVID-19
INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine provides remote clinical support through technology tools. It can facilitate medical care delivery while reducing unnecessary office visits. The COVID-19 outbreak has caused an abrupt change in our daily urological practice, where teleconsultations play a crucial role. OBJECTIVE: To provide practical recommendations for the effective use of technological tools in telemedicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Medline until April 2020. We selected the most relevant articles related to «telemedicine» and «smart working» that could provide valuable information. RESULTS: Telemedicine refers to the use of electronic information and telecommunication tools to provide remote clinical health care support. Smart working is a working approach that uses new or existing technologies to improve performance. Telemedicine is becoming a useful and fundamental tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and will be even more in the future. It is time for us to officially give telemedicine the place it deserves in clinical practice, and it is our responsibility to adapt and familiarize with all the tools and possible strategies for its optimal implementation. We must guarantee that the quality of care received by patients and perceived by them and their families is of the highest standard. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine facilitates remote specialized urological clinical support and solves problems caused by limited patient mobility or transfer, reduces unnecessary visits to clinics and is useful to reduce the risk of COVID-19 viral transmission
Subject(s)
Humans , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pandemics , Betacoronavirus , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Telemedicine/standards , Urology/methods , Air Pollution/prevention & control , Appointments and Schedules , Confidentiality , Diagnostic Techniques, Urological , Electronic Health Records , Urology/organization & administration , Urology/standards , Informed Consent , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Quality of Health Care , Societies, Medical , Triage/methods , Europe/epidemiologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine provides remote clinical support through technology tools. It can facilitate medical care delivery while reducing unnecessary office visits. The COVID-19 outbreak has caused an abrupt change in our daily urological practice, where teleconsultations play a crucial role. OBJECTIVE: To provide practical recommendations for the effective use of technological tools in telemedicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Medline until April 2020. We selected the most relevant articles related to «telemedicine¼ and «smart working¼ that could provide valuable information. RESULTS: Telemedicine refers to the use of electronic information and telecommunication tools to provide remote clinical health care support. Smart working is a working approach that uses new or existing technologies to improve performance. Telemedicine is becoming a useful and fundamental tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and will be even more in the future. It is time for us to officially give telemedicine the place it deserves in clinical practice, and it is our responsibility to adapt and familiarize with all the tools and possible strategies for its optimal implementation. We must guarantee that the quality of care received by patients and perceived by them and their families is of the highest standard. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine facilitates remote specialized urological clinical support and solves problems caused by limited patient mobility or transfer, reduces unnecessary visits to clinics and is useful to reduce the risk of COVID-19 viral transmission.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine , Urology/methods , Air Pollution/prevention & control , Appointments and Schedules , Confidentiality , Diagnostic Techniques, Urological , Electronic Health Records , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Informed Consent , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Quality of Health Care , Societies, Medical , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Telemedicine/standards , Triage/methods , Urology/organization & administration , Urology/standardsABSTRACT
Introducción: Las redes sociales (RRSS) ofrecen excelentes oportunidades para la difusión del conocimiento científico y su aplicación en el ámbito de la urología es cada vez mayor. Sin embargo, existe controversia alrededor de este tema. Los vídeos en directo compartidos a través de las plataformas de las RRSS ofrecen muchas ventajas y desventajas; existen riesgos potenciales con respecto a la confidencialidad, infracción de derechos de autor, entre otros. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar el papel de los vídeos compartidos en RRSS durante los congresos de urología. Materiales y métodos: Desde enero de 2016 hasta junio de 2018, se llevó a cabo un estudio exhaustivo de los vídeos compartidos en RRSS durante el Congreso de la Asociación Europea de Urología. Se utilizaron las herramientas online Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope y YouTube para la recopilación de datos. Se analizaron las siguientes variables: el número de vídeos, el tiempo de retransmisión y las visualizaciones de cada uno. Los vídeos se clasificaron como en directo o pregrabados y como científicos o no científicos. Se utilizó SPSS V22.0 para el procesamiento de datos. Resultados: Identificamos 108 vídeos compartidos en RRSS, 292,42 minutos de retransmisión, 67732 visualizaciones. De estos 79 (73%) eran vídeos en directo, de los cuales 78 (72%) se consideraron científicos y 30 (28%) no científicos. Durante los años del estudio (2016-2018) se observó un aumento en el tiempo de retransmisión (p = 0,031), el número de vídeos, visualizaciones (p = 0,018) y vídeos en directo (p = 0,019) durante el congreso anual de la Asociación Europea de Urología. Conclusiones: La publicación de vídeos de congresos urológicos en RRSS está en constante aumento. Estos vídeos proporcionan ventajas para la comunicación, la divulgación científica y amplían el alcance de los congresos. Sin embargo, existe un riesgo potencial al compartir información en tiempo real que podría no estar en línea con las recomendaciones para el uso apropiado de las redes sociales
Introduction: Social Media (SoMe) offers excellent opportunities for scientific knowledge dissemination and its use has been extended in urology. However, there is controversy about its use. Live videos shared trough SoMe platforms offer many advantages, but at the same time disadvantages and potential risks including confidentiality, copyright infringement, among others. We aimed to assess the activity of shared videos on SoMe during urological conferences. Materials and methods: A comprehensive study of videos shared on SoMe during European Association of Urology congress was carried out from January 2016 to June 2018. The online tools Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope and YouTube were searched to collect data. Number of videos, transmission time and views were analyzed. Videos were classified as live or pre-recorded and as scientific or non-scientific. SPSS V22.0 was used to process data. Results: We identified 108 videos shared on SoMe, 292.42minutes of transmission, 67732 views. 79 of 108 (73%) were live streaming videos, 78 (72%) of which were considered scientific vs. 30 (28%) non-scientific. An increase was observed trough the years of study (2016-2018) in transmission time (p = .031) number of videos, views (p = .018) and live videos (p = .019) during the annual congress of the European Association of Urology. Conclusions: Shared videos on SoMe from urological conferences are increasing. These provide advantages for communication, scientific dissemination and expand the scope of conferences. However, there is potential risk of sharing information in real time; that could not be in line with the recommendations for appropriate use of social networks
Subject(s)
Humans , Information Dissemination/ethics , Information Dissemination/methods , Social Networking , Video Recording/ethics , Societies, Medical/ethics , Urology , Societies, Medical/standardsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Social Media (SoMe) offers excellent opportunities for scientific knowledge dissemination and its use has been extended in urology. However, there is controversy about its use. Live videos shared trough SoMe platforms offer many advantages, but at the same time disadvantages and potential risks including confidentiality, copyright infringement, among others. We aimed to assess the activity of shared videos on SoMe during urological conferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive study of videos shared on SoMe during European Association of Urology congress was carried out from January 2016 to June 2018. The online tools Symplur (Symplur.com), Twitter, Periscope and YouTube were searched to collect data. Number of videos, transmission time and views were analyzed. Videos were classified as live or pre-recorded and as scientific or non-scientific. SPSS V22.0 was used to process data. RESULTS: We identified 108 videos shared on SoMe, 292.42minutes of transmission, 67732 views. 79 of 108 (73%) were live streaming videos, 78 (72%) of which were considered scientific vs. 30 (28%) non-scientific. An increase was observed trough the years of study (2016-2018) in transmission time (p=.031) number of videos, views (p=.018) and live videos (p=.019) during the annual congress of the European Association of Urology. CONCLUSIONS: Shared videos on SoMe from urological conferences are increasing. These provide advantages for communication, scientific dissemination and expand the scope of conferences. However, there is potential risk of sharing information in real time; that could not be in line with the recommendations for appropriate use of social networks.
Subject(s)
Congresses as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Information Dissemination/methods , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , Urology/statistics & numerical data , Video Recording/statistics & numerical data , Authorship , Confidentiality , Europe , Humans , Intellectual Property , Mobile Applications/statistics & numerical data , Time Factors , Video Recording/classificationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotypes 3 and 4 are zoonoses, with domestic pigs being the most important reservoir. A high anti- HEV IgG seroprevalence of 26 - 28% has been found in humans in Cape Town, South Africa (SA). Studies in industrialised countries have indicated a high prevalence of HEV in pigs and their associated food products. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether HEV could be found in pig-derived food products in Cape Town. METHODS: Pork-containing food products were purchased from supermarkets and butcheries around the Cape Town metropolitan area. HEV detection by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed, and an amplified viral genome fragment was sequenced from positive samples. Phylogenetic analysis was done on the sequenced fragment. RESULTS: HEV was detected by PCR in 2/144 food samples - both were liver spread samples. One genome fragment sequence was obtained, which was closely related to HEV sequences obtained from humans in Cape Town. CONCLUSIONS: HEV can be found in pork-containing meat products available for sale in Cape Town, suggesting that these products could be a potential source of HEV transmission in our geographical area. Meat of pig origin should be thoroughly cooked before being consumed.
