Examining the impact of video-based outpatient education on patient demand for a rheumatology CNS service

Background: Patient demand for education and access to the clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) during the rheumatology clinic at one hospital in Ireland was increasing. Alternative methods of providing patient education had to be examined. Aims: To explore the efficacy of video-based outpatient education, and its impact on demand for the CNSs. Methods: A video was produced to play in a rheumatology outpatient department. A representative sample of 240 patients (120 non-exposed and 120 exposed to the video) attending the clinic was selected to complete a questionnaire exploring the effect of the video. Data were analysed using chi-square tests with Yates' continuity correction. Findings: Demand for the CNSs was six times higher in the non-exposed group compared with the exposed group (non-exposed: 25%, exposed: 4.8%) (χ2=15.7, P=0.00007), representing a significant decrease in resource demand. Conclusion: High-quality educational videos on view in the rheumatology outpatient department provide patients with information sufficient to meet their educational needs, thus releasing CNS resources.

AB0702 PITFALLS IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF COVID-19 – EXPERIENCES FROM A RHEUMATOLOGY OUTPATIENT CLINIC

Background:PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is generally considered the gold standard for confirming the diagnosis in the early stages of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection. However, in our rheumatology outpatient clinic we observed a significant discrepancy between clinical evidence of COVID-19 and PCR results.Objectives:Aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the significance of PCR and serologic tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019) in a cohort of patients with rheumatic diseases.Methods:Between March 2020 and January 2021, 35 patients with a history of established COVID-19 or typical signs and symptoms were identified on the occasion of a routine rheumatology follow-up examination in our institution. Previous diagnostic work-up in external facilities (results of PCR or antibody testing, imaging) was documented. Antibody ELISA-tests (IgG, IgA, IgM, Euroimmun) were performed in patients reporting typical signs and symptoms of COVID-19 in the past.Results:PCR diagnostics had been performed in 15/35 patients (43%), in 13/35 (39%) at the onset of the first symptoms, in 2 subjects only 2 months later. PCR was positive in 7/13 (54%) of those tested early, but negative in the two patients tested later. In 29/35 patients (83%) SARS-CoV-2-ELISA tests were performed on the occasion of the routine rheumatologic examination (interval between first symptoms and testing on average 98 days, median86, range 4-283 days). In two of the initially negative individuals the second PCR was positive. ELISA tests were positive in all patients. SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies were positive in only two patients (however 55 and 71 days after disease onset), n=8/29 (28%) IgG only, n=9/29 (31%) IgG and IgA, n=12/29 (41%) IgA only. In these subjects, IgG antibodies did not develop even in the further course. Antibody titers were in part very high, but in part also very low (only just above the normal value), so even low titers were diagnostic obviously. In all patients with negative PCR, ELISA was positive and retrospectively led to confirmation of the diagnosis. Only in 13/35 patients (37%) diagnosis had been made with the onset of the first symptoms or in the course of clinically manifest disease and had led to appropriate quarantine measures and contact tracing by the health authorities. In contrast, in the majority of patients (63%), the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was only made retrospectively on the occasion of a routine rheumatologic follow-up. However, 5 of these 22 patients (23%) had quarantined themselves during the symptomatic phase. Titer histories were available from 12 patients. The titer became negative in 7 patients, after a mean of 188 days (median 202, min 51, max 296 days), and remained positive in 5 individuals (mean 190 days, median 191, min 122, max 260 days). The change of the titer was independent of disease severity or antirheumatic therapy.Conclusion:The results suggest that the importance of PCR in the diagnosis of COVID-19 may be overestimated. Therefore, antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 should be performed in cases of clinical suspicion and negative PCR. In antibody diagnostics, special features were observed compared to other viruses, in particular, in some patients only low antibody titers or the absence of seroconversion with lack of development of IgG antibodies. Normalization of antibody titers in some patients supports the recommendation to vaccinate even after expired COVID-19 disease.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

POS1254 INCIDENCE AND OUTCOME OF COVID-19 IN ROUTINE RHEUMATOLOGY CARE: DATA FROM A SINGLE OUTPATIENT CENTER IN GERMANY

Background:Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) and its associated disease COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019) has become a worldwide pandemic since its first cases in December 2019 in Wuhan Province in China. Until now little is known about the incidence and the course of the disease in a routine setting of rheumatology outpatient care.Objectives:Aim of the study was to identify cases with COVID-19, to analyse course and outcome of the disease and the potential role of antirheumatic medication.Methods:On the occasion of a routine follow-up examination all consecutive patients of our rheumatology outpatient center were questioned about the history of established COVID-19, about typical symptoms or about contacts with patients in the period from March to the end of December 2020. Diagnostic work-up (results of PCR or antibody testing, imaging) was documented. Antibody ELISA-tests (IgG, IgA, IgM, Euroimmun) were performed in patients reporting typical signs and symptoms. Course and outcome of COVID-19 were divided in 5 groups (mild, moderate, severe, most severe, and lethal).Results:About 2.000 patients were screened. Positive findings for SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by PCR or serological testing were detected in n=33/2000 (1.65%) patients (n=14/33 (43%) rheumatoid arthritis (RA), n=8/33 (24%) psoriatic arthritis (PsA), n=7/33 (21%) spondyloarthritis (SpA), n=4/33 (12%) other diseases).No patient died and no patient required intensive care or invasive mechanical ventilation. N=2/33 patients (6%) suffered a severe course with hospitalization, one of these required intermittent oxygen administration. Both patients had no ongoing therapy with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). One patient suffered from SpA, one patient from RA. Both patients had relevant comorbidities with chronic lung disease and breast cancer.Symptoms were absent or mild in n=21/33 (64%) patients, moderate in n=10/33 (30%). N=22/31 (71%) of patients with absent, mild or moderate symptoms were treated at least with one DMARD.Conclusion:For an at-risk population, the incidence of COVID-19 was unexpectedly low. Overall, patients had a mild course despite immunosuppressive therapy. This finding is consistent with published data from a single university center (1) and other university outpatient clinics (2). Possibly DMARD-therapy may protect against the occurrence of cytokine storm and vasculitic complications, which lead to severe courses and lethal outcomes in some of the patients. The data support the recommendation not to discontinue DMARDs for fear of COVID-19.References:[1]Simon D et al. Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving cytokine inhibitors have low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion. Nat Commun. 2020 Jul 24;11(1):3774. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17703-6. PMID: 32709909; PMCID: PMC7382482.[2]Gianfrancesco M et al. COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance. Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jul;79(7):859-866. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217871. Epub 2020 May 29. PMID: 32471903; PMCID: PMC7299648.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

OP0274-PARE EVALUATION OF PATIENT SATISFACTION FOR TELEHEALTH (PHONE AND VIDEO) IN RHEUMATOLOGY OUTPATIENTS DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Background:Telehealth via phone (TPhone) or video conference (TVideo) in rheumatology has been a topic of interest for many years. Its use was rapidly expanded due to the international public health emergency of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak in 2020. Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) swiftly enabled temporary MBS telehealth items on 13 March 2020, currently extended until 31 March 20211. In the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, Antony et al. conducted a single-centre public survey to assess patient perception of rheumatology telehealth. Their results showed that 98.4% of patients consider telehealth acceptable during the pandemic2. It is unclear, however, whether this positive perception persists after patients experience a telehealth. In addition, a survey data in 2019 suggested more than half of Australian rheumatologists work in private practice3. Therefore, inclusion of private patients will better represent patient perception of telehealth.Objectives:The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. This would determine its feasibility to be integrated in future rheumatology outpatient model.Methods:A questionnaire containing 30 questions was sent to rheumatology patients who attended telehealth appointments at a level 2 public hospital and a local private clinic between April and May 2020. The questionnaires aimed to obtain information on baseline demographics (sex, age, public or private patient, employment status, visual or auditory impairment), appointment details (TPhone or TVideo, usual arrangement for face-to-face (F2F) appointment, cost effectiveness) and appointment satisfaction using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted.Results:The questionnaire was sent to 1452 patients, of which 494 patients responded (34%). Female predominance (77.1%) and a higher proportion of TPhone (79.1%) was seen in the respondents. A majority of patients were existing patients known to the services (90.9%). More than 70% of responses indicated overall satisfaction in specialist care via telehealth, and 88.7% perceived this suitable during a pandemic. Of all respondents, 21.7% were prescribed new medication, and the majority of these patients were confident in taking the new medication after the telehealth appointment. Future acceptability for TPhone was significantly lower in private patients compared to public patients (p= 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that higher telehealth satisfaction was associated with needing to take time off work to attend face-to-face appointment (p= 0.02), perception of cost effectiveness (p<0.001) and TVideo (p=0.03).Conclusion:This is the first study which included both public and private rheumatology patients to evaluate patient satisfaction for telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall high level of satisfaction was seen in telehealth most notably associated with its cost effectiveness. A higher percentage of patients who had TVideo compared to TPhone were receptive to future telehealth via TVideo, supportive of the importance of visual cues. This in turn will have significant administrative and technological burdens to coordinate in comparison to a F2F or TPhone review. This qualitative study provides valuable insight of patient perception of telehealth, which has the potential to compliment the traditional rheumatology outpatient model of care following the pandemic.References:[1]COVID-19 Temporary MBS Telehealth Services 2020 [Available from: http://www.mbsonline.gov.au/internet/mbsonline/publishing.nsf/Content/Factsheet-TempBB.[2]Antony A, Connelly K, De Silva T, Eades L, Tillett W, Ayoub S, et al. Perspectives of Patients With Rheumatic Diseases in the Early Phase of COVID-19. Arthritis Care & Research. 2020;72(9):1189-95.[3]Association AR. Workforce Survey Exective Summary 2019 2019 [Available from: https://rheumatology.org.au/members/documents/WorkforceSurveyExecutiveSummary-websiteMay2019.pdf.Acknowledgements:University of QueenslandNursing staff at Redcliffe Hospital and Administration officers at Redcliffe & Northside RheumatologyDisclosure of Interests:None declared

Time spent by hospital personnel on drug changes: A time and motion study from an in-and outpatient hospital setting

Introduction Medicines used at Danish public hospitals are purchased through tendering. Together with drug shortage, tendering result in drug changes, known to compromise patient safety, increase medicine errors and to be resource demanding for healthcare personnel. Details on actual resources required in the clinic setting to manage drug changes are unknown. The aim of the study is to explore time spend by hospital personnel in a drug change situation when dispensing medicine to in- and outpatients in a hospital setting in the Capital Region of Denmark. Method A time and motion study, using direct observation combined with time-registration tools, such as eye-tracking, video recording and manual time tracking. Data were obtained from observing nurses and social and health care assistants with dispensing authority while dispensing or extraditing medicine before and after the implementation of drug changes in two clinical setting; a cardiology ward and a rheumatology outpatient clinic. Results Hospital personnel at the cardiology inpatient ward spent 20.5 seconds on dispensing a drug, which was increased up to 28.4 seconds by drug changes. At the rheumatology outpatient clinic, time to extradite medicine increased from 8 minutes and 6 seconds to 15 minutes and 36 seconds by drug changes due to tender. Similarly, drug changes due to drug shortage prolonged the extradition time to 16 minutes and 54 seconds. Statistical analysis reveal that drug changes impose a significant increase in time to dispense a drug for both in- and outpatients. Conclusion Clinical hospital personnel spent significantly longer time on drug change situations in the dispensing of medicine to in- and outpatients in a hospitals. This study emphasizes that implementing drug changes do require extra time, thus, the hospital management should encounter this and ensure that additional time is available for the hospital personnel to ensure a safe drug dispensing process.