Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has accelerated the adoption of telemedicine globally. The current consortium critically examines the telemedicine frameworks, identifies gaps in its implementation and investigates the changes in telemedicine framework/s during COVID-19 across the globe. Streamlining of global public health preparedness framework that is interoperable and allow for collaboration and sharing of resources, in which telemedicine is an integral part of the public health response during outbreaks such as COVID-19, should be pursued. With adequate reinforcement, telemedicine has the potential to act as the "safety-net" of our public health response to an outbreak. Our focus on telemedicine must shift to the developing and under-developing nations, which carry a disproportionate burden of vulnerable communities who are at risk due to COVID-19.

In the context of covid-19, aerosol generating procedures have been highlighted as requiring a higher grade of personal protective equipment. We investigated how official guidance documents and academic publications have classified procedures in terms of whether or not they are aerosol-generating. We performed a rapid systematic review using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses standards. Guidelines, policy documents and academic papers published in english or french offering guidance on aerosol-generating procedures were eligible. We systematically searched two medical databases (medline, cochrane central) and one public search engine (google) in march and april 2020. Data on how each procedure was classified by each source were extracted. We determined the level of agreement across different guidelines for each procedure group, in terms of its classification as aerosol generating, possibly aerosol-generating, or nonaerosol-generating. 128 documents met our inclusion criteria; they contained 1248 mentions of procedures that we categorised into 39 procedure groups. Procedures classified as aerosol-generating or possibly aerosol-generating by ≥90% of documents included autopsy, surgery/postmortem procedures with high-speed devices, intubation and extubation procedures, bronchoscopy, sputum induction, manual ventilation, airway suctioning, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, tracheostomy and tracheostomy procedures, non-invasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy, breaking closed ventilation systems, nebulised or aerosol therapy, and high frequency oscillatory ventilation. Disagreements existed between sources on some procedure groups, including oral and dental procedures, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, thoracic surgery and procedures, and nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabbing. There is sufficient evidence of agreement across different international guidelines to classify certain procedure groups as aerosol generating. However, some clinically relevant procedures received surprisingly little mention in our source documents. To reduce dissent on the remainder, we recommend that (a) clinicians define procedures more clearly and specifically, breaking them down into their constituent components where possible; (b) researchers undertake further studies of aerosolisation during these procedures; and (c) guideline-making and policy-making bodies address a wider range of procedures.

Consultant dermatologists in the U.K. have been reporting to EPIDERM, a voluntary surveillance scheme for occupational skin disease, since February 1993; reporting by occupational physicians to the scheme began in May 1994 and was superseded in January 1996 by OPRA (Occupational Physicians Reporting Activity). Currently 244 dermatologists and 790 occupational physicians report incident cases to these schemes. During the 6 years to January 1999 a total of 12, 574 new cases of occupational skin disease was estimated from reports by consultant dermatologists and 10,136 cases estimated from occupational physicians (since May 1994). The annual incidence of occupational contact dermatitis using data from both schemes was 12. 9 per 100,000 workers. The incidence of contact dermatitis per 100, 000 workers increased with age in men from 4.9 (age 16-29 years) to 6.6 (age 45-60 years); in women a higher rate (9.5) was apparent in the younger age group, with lower rates in older female workers. High rates in young workers were associated with wet work and in older workers with exposure to oils. For men, high rates of contact dermatitis were seen in reports from both schemes for chemical operatives, machine tool setters and operatives, coach and spray painters and metal workers. For women, high rates were found for hairdressers, biological scientists and laboratory workers, nurses and those working in catering. The most frequent agents for contact dermatitis were rubber chemicals and materials (14.1% of cases reported by dermatologists), soaps and cleaners (12.7%), nickel (11. 9%), wet work (11.1%), personal protective equipment (6.2%), petroleum products (6.3%), cutting oils and coolants (5.6%), and epoxy and other resins (6.1%). In the 1608 estimated cases of skin cancer all but 4% were attributed to ultraviolet radiation. Cases of contact urticaria attributed to latex peaked in 1996, with a decline in cases since that time.