Rapid triage and transition to telehealth for heart transplant patients in the COVID-19 pandemic setting.

BACKGROUND: In the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, a rapid uptake of telehealth services was instituted with the aim of reducing the spread of disease to vulnerable patient populations including heart transplant recipients. METHODS: Single-center, cohort study of all heart transplant patients seen by our institution's transplant program during the first 6 weeks of transition from in-person consultation to telehealth (23 March - 5 June 2020). RESULTS: Face-to-face consultation allocation strongly favored patients in the early post-operative period (34 vs. 242 weeks post-transplant; p < 0.001). Telehealth consultation dramatically reduced patient travel and wait times (80 min per visit saved in telehealth patients). No apparent excess re-hospitalization or mortality was seen in telehealth patients. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate triage, telehealth was feasible in heart transplant recipients, with videoconferencing being the preferred modality. Patients seen face-to-face were those triaged to be higher acuity based on time since transplant and overall clinical status. These patients have the expected higher rates of hospital re-admission, and therefore should continue to be seen in person.

Telemedicine with clinical decision support for critical care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine applications aim to address variance in clinical outcomes and increase access to specialist expertise. Despite widespread implementation, there is little robust evidence about cost-effectiveness, clinical benefits, and impact on quality and safety of critical care telemedicine. The primary objective was to determine the impact of critical care telemedicine (with clinical decision support available 24/7) on intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality and length of stay in adults and children. The secondary objectives included staff and patient experience, costs, protocol adherence, and adverse events. METHODS: Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library databases, Health Technology Assessment Database, Web of Science, OpenGrey, OpenDOAR, and the HMIC through to December 2015. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were eligible for inclusion. Eligible studies reported on differences between groups using the telemedicine intervention and standard care. Two review authors screened abstracts and assessed potentially eligible studies using Cochrane guidance. RESULTS: Two controlled before-after studies met the inclusion criteria. Both were assessed as high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible as we were unable to disaggregate data between the two studies. One study used a non-randomised stepped-wedge design in seven ICUs. Hospital mortality was the primary outcome which showed a reduction from 13.6 % (CI, 11.9-15.4 %) to 11.8 % (CI, 10.9-12.8 %) during the intervention period with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.40 (95 % CI, 0.31-0.52; p = .005). The second study used a non-randomised, unblinded, pre-/post-assessment of telemedicine interventions in 56 adult ICUs. Hospital mortality (primary outcome) reduced from 11 to 10 % (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84; CI, 0.78-0.89; p = <.001). CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the poor methodological quality of most studies investigating critical care telemedicine. The results of the two included studies showed a reduction in hospital mortality in patients receiving the intervention. Further multi-site randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with accompanying process evaluations are urgently needed to determine effectiveness, implementation, and associated costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014007406.