Objective The relative risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 in these patients. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID‐19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel‐Haenszel formula with random effects models. Results Of the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta‐analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16–2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08–2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID‐19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD. Conclusion Patients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and an increased mortality rate.

INTRODUCTION Electronic consultations (e-consults) may be a valuable tool in the current era of increased demand for hematologists. Despite the increasing use of e-consults in hematology, their optimal utilization and impact on patient outcomes and workload are largely unknown. METHODS In this retrospective cohort study, we studied the hematology consult experience at Veterans Affairs Connecticut from 2006 to 2018. We included 7,664 hematology consults (3,240 e-consults and 4,424 face-to-face [FTF] consults) requested by 1,089 unique clinicians. RESULTS We found that e-consults were rapidly adopted and used equally among physicians of different degrees of experience. The number of FTF consults did not decrease after the introduction of e-consult services. E-consults were preferentially used for milder laboratory abnormalities that had been less likely to result in a consult before their availability. Referring clinicians used e-consults preferentially for periprocedural management, anemia, leukopenia, and anticoagulation questions. Eighty-three percent of e-consults were resolved without needing an FTF visit in the year after the consult. Consults for pancytopenia, gammopathy, leukocytosis, and for patients with known malignancy were less likely to be resolved by e-consult. Among patients who were diagnosed with a new hematologic malignancy after their consult, having an e-consult before an FTF visit did not adversely affect survival. CONCLUSION In summary, e-consults safely expanded delivery of hematology services in our health care system but increased total consult volume. We report novel data on what types of consults may be best suited to the electronic modality, the impact of e-consults on workload, and their optimal use and implementation.

Objective:The objective of this study was to evaluate the utilization of telehealth for headache services within the Veterans Health Administration's facilities housing a Headache Centers of Excellence and multiple stakeholder's perspectives to inform future telehealth delivery.Background: Telehealth delivery of headache treatment may enhance patient access to headache care, yet little is known about the utilization or patient and provider perceptions of telehealth for veterans with headache. Methods: This mixed-methods study analyzed multiple data sources: (1) administrative data, which included 58,798 patients with medically diagnosed headache disorders, documented in at least one outpatient visit, from August 2019 through September 2020 from the 12 Veterans Health Administration's facilities with a Headache Center of Excellence and (2) qualitative semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 43 providers 6 months before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and 10 patients and 20 providers 6 months during the beginning of the pandemic. Results: During the pandemic, in-person visits declined from 12,794 to 6099 (52.0%), whereas video (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.66, 2.52), and telephone visits (IRR = 15.2, 95% CI = 10.7, 21.6) significantly increased.Utilization differed based on patient age, race/ethnicity, and rurality. Patients and providers perceived value in using telehealth, yet had limited experience with this modality pre-pandemic. Providers preferred in-person appointments for initial encounters and telehealth for follow-up visits. Providers and patients identified benefits and challenges of telehealth delivery, often relying on multiple delivery methods for telehealth to enhance patient engagement. Conclusions:The uptake of telehealth delivery of headache-related care rapidly expanded in response to the pandemic. Patients and providers were amenable to utilizing telehealth, yet also experienced technological barriers. To encourage equitable