Objectives The Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid global transition towards telemedicine; yet much remains unknown about telemedicine’s acceptability and safety in rheumatology. To help address this gap and inform practice, this study investigated rheumatology patient and clinician experiences and views of telemedicine. Methods Sequential mixed methodology combined analysis of surveys and in-depth interviews. Between and within-group differences in views of telemedicine were examined for patients and clinicians using t-tests. Results Surveys (Patients n = 1,340, Clinicians n = 111) and interviews (Patients n = 31, Clinicians n = 29) were completed between April 2021 and July 2021. The majority of patients were from the UK (96%) and had inflammatory arthritis (32%) or lupus (32%). Patients and clinicians rated telemedicine as worse than face-to-face consultations in almost all categories, although >60% found it more convenient. Building trusting medical relationships and assessment accuracy were great concerns (93% of clinicians and 86% of patients rated telemedicine as worse than face-to-face for assessment accuracy). Telemedicine was perceived to have increased misdiagnoses, inequalities and barriers to accessing care. Participants reported highly disparate telemedicine delivery and responsiveness from primary and secondary care. Although rheumatology clinicians highlighted the importance of a quick response to flaring patients, only 55% of patients were confident that their rheumatology department would respond within 48 hours. Conclusion Findings indicate a preference for face-to-face consultations. Some negative experiences may be due to the pandemic rather than telemedicine specifically, although the risk of greater diagnostic inaccuracies using telemedicine is unlikely to be fully resolved. Training, choice, careful patient selection, and further consultation with clinicians and patients is required to increase telemedicine’s acceptability and safety.
Objective The UK’s shielding guidance for the ‘clinically extremely vulnerable’ (CEV) commenced on 23 March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of the pandemic and shielding on patients with lupus and related systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods This was a mixed-methods cohort study (N = 111) including pre-lockdown baseline surveys (March 2020), follow-up surveys (June 2020), and in-depth interviews during July 2020 (N = 25). Results Most participants had a high level of anxiety regarding their mortality risk from COVID-19 and supported the shielding concept. Shielding allocations and communications were perceived as inconsistently applied and delivered. Over half of those not classified as CEV reported feeling abandoned, at increased risk and with no support. Shielding communications increased feelings of being ‘cared about’, yet also increased fear, and the ‘vulnerable’ labelling was perceived by some to damage social- and self-identity. Over 80% of those classified as CEV stated that the classification and subsequent communications had changed their social-mixing behaviour. Despite many negative impacts of COVID-19 and shielding/lockdown being identified, including isolation, fear and reduced medical care, the during-pandemic quantitative data showed increases in most measures of well-being (which was low at both timepoints) from pre-lockdown, including reductions in the impact of fatigue and pain (Ps < 0.001). Conclusion Shielding classifications and communications were generally positively viewed, although perceived as inconsistently delivered and anxiety-provoking. More frequent positively-framed communication and wellbeing support could benefit all SARD patients. Slower-paced ‘lockdown’ lifestyles may confer health/wellbeing benefits for some people with chronic diseases.
Lupus is a multi-system autoimmune rheumatic disease with increased morbidity and mortality. Some manifestations are life-threatening with many aspects of living with the disease, difficulties in diagnosis and accessing appropriate medical care, having an impact on quality of life. The disease itself, and these patients’ perspectives, are currently poorly understood and under-researched. The LUPUS UK forum of conversations between over 25,000 members provides a rich environment to explore the views of these patients. Conversations on the LUPUS UK online forum were qualitatively explored using virtual ethnography and thematic analysis. The forum itself and positive medical relationships were widely considered to provide a means of support, understanding and validation. Forum members expressed difficulties in diagnosis, disease management, and the psychological and physical impact of living with an unpredictable, poorly understood disease, often with life-changing symptoms. Invalidating personal, social and medical environments were perceived as exacerbating these difficulties. Delays in diagnosis and misdiagnoses were frequently discussed as causing significant damage, especially when symptoms were disbelieved or dismissed. Invalidation was the key theme with further themes of: Uncertainty, Medical (mis)communications and misunderstandings, Navigating health systems and Resilience and support. Although effective care and support was reported by some members, the negative impact of living with an incurable, life-changing disease was often exacerbated by perceived invalidation, uncertainty, and difficulties in multiple areas of members’ lives. Improved knowledge of the disease and greater support at all stages of the diagnostic journey could improve outcomes and quality of life for these patients.
Objective To better understand rheumatology patient and clinician pandemic-related experiences, medical relationships and behaviours in order to help identify the persisting impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, and inform efforts to ameliorate the negative impacts and build-upon the positive ones. Methods Rheumatology patients and clinicians completed surveys (Patients N = 1,543, Clinicians N = 111) and interviews (Patients N = 41, Clinicians N = 32) between April 2021 and August 2021. A cohort (N = 139) of systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease patients was also followed-up from March 2020 to April 2021. Analyses used sequential mixed methods. Pre-specified outcome measures included the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental wellbeing score (WEMWBS), satisfaction with care, and healthcare-behaviours. Results We identified multiple ongoing pandemic-induced/increased barriers to receiving care. The percentage of patients agreeing they were medically supported reduced from 74.4% pre-pandemic to 39.7% during-pandemic. Ratings for medical support, medical-security and trust were significantly (p< 0.001) positively correlated with patient WEMWBS and healthcare-behaviours, and decreased during the pandemic. Healthcare-seeking was reduced, potentially long-term, including from patients feeling ‘abandoned’ by clinicians, and a ‘burden’ from Government messaging to protect the NHS. Blame and distrust were frequent, particularly between primary and secondary care, and towards the UK Government, whom <10% of clinicians felt had supported clinicians during the pandemic. Clinicians’ efforts were reported to be impeded by inefficient administration systems, and chronic understaffing, suggestive of the pandemic having exposed and exacerbated existing healthcare-system weaknesses. Conclusion Without concerted action—such as rebuilding trust, improved administrative systems, and more support for clinicians—barriers to care and negative impacts of the pandemic on trust, medical relationships, medical-security and patient help-seeking may persist longer-term. Trial registration This study is part of a pre-registered longitudinal multi-stage trial, the LISTEN study (ISRCTN-14966097), with later Covid-related additions registered in March 2021, including a pre-registered statistical analysis plan.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.