Background By permitting remote assessments of patients and research participants, telemedicine has the potential to reshape clinical care and clinical trials for Parkinson disease. While the majority of the motor Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) items can be conducted visually, rigidity and retropulsion pull testing require hands-on assessment by the rater and are less feasible to perform remotely in patients' homes. Methods In a secondary data analysis of the Comparison of the Agonist pramipexole vs. Levodopa on Motor complications in Parkinson’s Disease (CALM-PD) study, a randomized clinical trial, we assessed the cross-sectional (baseline and 2 years) and longitudinal (change from baseline to 2 years) reliability of a modified motor UPDRS (removing rigidity and retropulsion items) compared to the standard motor UPDRS (all items) using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), stratified by treatment group. Internal consistency of the modified UPDRS (mUPDRS) was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, and concurrent validity was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) between the standard motor UPDRS and mUPDRS. Results The mUPDRS versus standard motor UPDRS is cross-sectionally (ICC ≥ 0.92) and longitudinally (ICC ≥ 0.92) reliable for both treatment groups. High internal consistencies were also observed (α ≥ 0.96). The mUPDRS had high concurrent validity with the standard UPDRS at both time points and longitudinally (r ≥ 0.93, p < 0.0001). Conclusions A modified version of the motor UPDRS without rigidity and retropulsion pull testing is reliable and valid and may lay the foundation for its use in remote assessments of patients and research participants.

Objective: To determine the current practice and plans for telemedicine at leading US neurology departments. Design and Setting: An electronic survey was sent to department chairs, administrators, or faculty involved in telemedicine at 47 neurology departments representing the top 50 hospitals as ranked by U.S. News and World Report. Main Outcome Measures: Current use, size, scope, reimbursement, and perceived quality of telemedicine services. Results: A total of 32 individuals from 30 departments responded (64% response rate). The primary respondents were neurology faculty (66%) and department chairs (22%). Of the responding departments, 60% (18 of 30) currently provide telemedicine and most (n ¼ 12) had initiated services within the last 2 years. Two thirds of those not providing telemedicine plan to do so within a year. Departments provide services to patients in state, out of state, and internationally, but only 6 departments had more than 50 consultations in the last year. The principal applications were stroke (n ¼ 14), movement disorders (n ¼ 4), and neurocritical care (n ¼ 3). Most departments (n ¼ 12) received external funding for telemedicine services, but few departments (n ¼ 3) received payment from insurers (eg, Medicare, Medicaid). Reimbursement (n ¼ 21) was the most frequently identified barrier to implementing telemedicine services. The majority of respondents (n ¼ 20) find telemedicine to be equivalent to in-person care. Conclusions: Over 85% of leading US neurology departments currently use or plan to implement telemedicine within the next year. Addressing reimbursement may allow for its broader application.

Background: Group patient visits are medical appointments shared among patients with a com-