Background:Telemedicine was widely utilised to complement face-to-face (F2F) care in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the impact of this on patient care is poorly understood.Objectives:To investigate the impact of telemedicine during COVID-19 on outpatient rheumatology services.Methods:We retrospectively audited patient electronic medical records from rheumatology outpatient clinics in an urban tertiary rheumatology centre between April-May 2020 (telemedicine cohort) and April-May 2019 (comparator cohort). Differences in age, sex, primary diagnosis, medications, and proportion of new/review appointments were assessed using Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests. Univariate analysis was used to estimate associations between telemedicine usage and the ability to assign a diagnosis in patients without a prior rheumatological diagnosis, the frequency of changes to immunosuppression, subsequent F2F review, planned admissions or procedures, follow-up phone calls, and time to next appointment.Results:3,040 outpatient appointments were audited: 1,443 from 2019 and 1,597 from 2020. There was no statistically significant difference in the age, sex, proportion of new/review appointments, or frequency of immunosuppression use between the cohorts. Inflammatory arthritis (IA) was a more common diagnosis in the 2020 cohort (35.1% vs 31%, p=0.024). 96.7% (n=1,444) of patients seen in the 2020 cohort were reviewed via telemedicine. In patients without an existing rheumatological diagnosis, the odds of making a diagnosis at the appointment were significantly lower in 2020 (28.6% vs 57.4%; OR 0.30 [95% CI 0.16-0.53]; p<0.001). Clinicians were also less likely to change immunosuppressive therapy in 2020 (22.6% vs 27.4%; OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.65-0.92]; p=0.004). This was mostly driven by less de-escalation in therapy (10% vs 12.6%; OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.59-0.95]; p=0.019) as there was no statistically significant difference in the escalation or switching of immunosuppressive therapies. There was no significant difference in frequency of follow-up phone calls, however, patients seen in 2020 required earlier follow-up appointments (p<0.001). There was also no difference in unplanned rheumatological presentations but significantly fewer planned admissions and procedures in 2020 (1% vs 2.6%, p=0.002). Appointment non-attendance reduced in 2020 to 6.5% from 10.9% in 2019 (OR 0.57 [95% CI 0.44-0.74]; p<0.001), however the odds of discharging a patient from care were significantly lower in 2020 (3.9% vs 6%; OR 0.64 [95% CI 0.46-0.89]; p=0.008), although there was no significance when patients who failed to attend were excluded. Amongst patients seen via telemedicine in 2020, a subsequent F2F appointment was required in 9.4%. The predictors of needing a F2F review were being a new patient (OR 6.28 [95% CI 4.10-9.64]; p<0.001), not having a prior rheumatological diagnosis (OR 18.43 [95% CI: 2.35-144.63]; p=0.006), or having a diagnosis of IA (OR 2.85 [95% CI: 1.40-5.80]; p=0.004) or connective tissue disease (OR 3.22 [95% CI: 1.11-9.32]; p=0.031).Conclusion:Most patients in the 2020 cohort were seen via telemedicine. Telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with reduced clinic non-attendance, but with diagnostic delay, reduced likelihood of changing existing immunosuppressive therapy, earlier requirement for review, and lower likelihood of discharge. While the effects of telemedicine cannot be differentiated from changes in practice related to other aspects of the pandemic, they suggest that telemedicine may have a negative impact on the timeliness of management of rheumatology patients.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.
Efficacy of Mobile phone use on adherence to Nevirapine prophylaxis and retention in care among the HIV-exposed infants in prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV: a randomized controlled trial