Teleconsultation in family medicine amid the Covid-19 pandemic: An adequate tool?

INTRODUCTION: Teleconsultation is an emerging tool whose utilization dramatically increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. Our aim was to determine its clinical accuracy. METHODS: This prospective study was carried out during the first wave of Covid-19. Patients were teleconsulted by either general practitioners or emergency doctors reporting clinical exam results to the ID physicians by phone. Five signs were specifically checked: dyspnea, fever, cough, anosmia and flu-like illness. Data collected by remote consultation were compared to face-to-face examination in an ID Department. RESULTS: From March to April 2020, 149 patients were seen by remote medical care. Dyspnea was found in 14.1% of the teleconsultation patients vs 3.4% in face-to-face consultation; fever in 47.0 vs. 15.4%; cough in 69.1 vs. 16.1%; anosmia in 3.4 vs. 1.3%; flu-like illness in 53.0 vs. 7.4% (all differences significant: P<0.001). CONCLUSION: We observed incongruency between remote and face-to-face consultation for the main clinical signs of Covid-19.

Feasibility and acceptability of HIV screening through the use of rapid tests by general practitioners in a Brussels area with a substantial African community.

OBJECTIVES: To assess:1) if HIV screening with rapid tests in neighbourhoods with a substantial African community is feasible and acceptable among GPs and patients; 2) HIV seroprevalence. METHODS: Multicenter prospective study with 10 trained physicians. Use of HIV standard test and INSTI Ultrarapid test. INCLUSION CRITERIA: MSM, sex worker, multiple sexual partners, having returned or coming from a country with high HIV prevalence, IVDU, Indicator conditions as defined by HIV Indicator Diseases across Europe Study, having an AIDS-defining illness, having had a recent pregnancy or abortion; or presenting other risks. RESULTS: From August 2010 to August 2011, 10 trained GPs offered an HIV test to 224 patients: 51% ♀, 48% ♂, 43% Caucasians, 45% Africans. INCLUSION CRITERIA: 32% "high risk group", 9% returning from an endemic country, 29% with an indicator condition; 12 patients (6%) refused the standard test. The INSTI was offered to 217(97%), 197 performed with 2 reactive rapid tests confirmed. The seroprevalence according to ethnic origin was 0% among Caucasians and 2.2% among Africans and was 1.5% among patients with an indicator condition. 1087 consecutive consultations of the same GPs were recorded: 42% patients had ≥ 1 inclusion criteria among which 41% of offered tests, that is to say 59% of "missed opportunities". The reasons for not offering the test as recorded for 55% of patients:"not indicated" 44.5%, "no time" 33%, "impossible to propose" 15%, test completed previously 11%, known HIV-positive 4%. CONCLUSIONS: Standard and rapid tests are well received by patients but were usually not offered by doctors who have been trained.