Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol ; 18(1): 16, 2022 Feb 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35189969

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In the era of COVID-19, utilization of telemedicine has dramatically increased. In addition to reduced travel times, patient expenses, and work or school days missed, telemedicine allows clinicians to provide continued care while minimizing face-to-face interactions, maintaining social distancing, and limiting potential COVID-19 exposures. Clinical Immunology and Allergy (CIA), like many specialties, has adapted to incorporate telemedicine into practice. Previous studies have demonstrated similar patient satisfaction between virtual and in-person visits. However, evidence from fully publicly funded health care systems such as Canada has been limited. METHODS: We performed a quality improvement (QI) initiative to assess the feasibility of telemedicine. Between 1 March and 30 September 2020, patient encounters of two academic allergists at a single institution in London, Ontario, Canada were analyzed. Assessments were categorized into in-person or telemedicine appointments. A random sample of patients assessed virtually completed a voluntary patient satisfaction survey. Qualitative analysis was performed on survey comments. RESULTS: In total 3342 patients were seen. The majority were adults (n = 2162, or 64.7%) and female (n = 1872, or 56%). 1543 (46.2%) assessments were virtual and 1799 (53.8%) assessments were in-person. 67 of 100 random patient surveys sent to those in the virtual assessment group were completed. 89.6% (n = 60) agreed or strongly agreed when asked if they were satisfied with their telemedicine visit. 64.2% (n = 43) felt they received the same level of care compared to in-person assessments and 91% (n = 61) stated they would attend another virtual appointment. 95.4% (n = 62) of patients reported saving time with virtual assessment, the majority (n = 42, 62.7%) estimating between 1-4 h saved. Reported shortcomings included technical difficulties, "feeling rushed", and missing in-person interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Our quality improvement initiative demonstrated high patient satisfaction and time savings with virtual assessment in a publicly funded health care system. Studies suggest that CIA may be uniquely situated to benefit from permanent integration of virtual care into regular practice for both new and follow-up appointments. We anticipate continued increased utilization of telemedicine, signifying a lasting beneficial change in the delivery of healthcare.

2.
Immunotherapy ; 13(16): 1325-1331, 2021 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34612079

RESUMO

Aim: To determine the safety and efficacy of 0.5 mg intramuscular (IM) epinephrine for the treatment of subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy induced anaphylaxis. Patients & methods: Retrospective chart review of patients who received 0.5 mg of IM epinephrine for treatment of anaphylaxis from subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy at two outpatient allergy and immunology practices. Results: Thirty-eight patients received 0.5 mg IM epinephrine. Eleven patients (29%) required a second dose, and two patients (5%) required a third dose of IM epinephrine. Sixteen patients (42%) were transferred to the emergency department with ongoing symptoms. All had eventual resolution of anaphylaxis. There were no adverse reactions or fatalities. Conclusion: IM epinephrine at a dose of 0.5 mg is safe and effective for treatment of anaphylaxis from subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy.


Lay abstract The aim of this study to understand whether a 0.5 mg dose of epinephrine injected into the muscle is safe and effective in treating anaphylaxis (a life-threatening allergic reaction) caused by subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (allergy shots). We reviewed the charts of all patients who received 0.5 mg of epinephrine at two allergy clinics. Thirty-eight patients received 0.5 mg of epinephrine. Twenty-nine percent of patients required a second dose of epinephrine and 5% required a third dose. Forty-two percent of patients were sent to the emergency department due to ongoing symptoms. Anaphylaxis was successfully treated in all patients. There were no side effects or deaths. Epinephrine at 0.5 mg is safe and effective in treating anaphylaxis from subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy.


Assuntos
Anafilaxia/tratamento farmacológico , Anafilaxia/etiologia , Dessensibilização Imunológica/efeitos adversos , Epinefrina/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA