No abstract

BackgroundTimely, in-person access to health care is a challenge for people living with conditions such as stroke that result in frailty, loss of independence, restrictions in driving and mobility, and physical and cognitive decline. In Southeastern Ontario, access is further complicated by rurality and the long travel distances to visit physician clinics. There is a need to make health care more accessible and convenient. Home virtual visits (electronic visits, eVisits) can conveniently connect physicians to patients. Physicians use a secure personal videoconferencing tool to connect to patients in their homes. Patients use their device of choice (smartphone, tablet, laptop, or desktop) for the visit.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the feasibility and logistics of implementing eVisits in a stroke prevention clinic for seniors.MethodsA 6-month eVisit pilot study was initiated in the Kingston Health Sciences Centre stroke prevention clinic in August 2018. eVisits were used only for follow-up patient encounters. An integrated evaluation was used to test the impact of the program on clinic workflow and patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by telephone interviews, using a brief questionnaire. Access and patient satisfaction metrics were compared with concurrent standard of care (patients’ prior personal experience with in-person visits). Values are presented as median (interquartile range).ResultsThere were 75 subjects in the pilot. The patients were aged 65 (56-73.5) years, and 39% (29/75) resided in rural areas. There was a shorter wait for an appointment by eVisit versus in-person (mean 59.98 [SD 48.36] days vs mean 78.36 [SD 50.54] days; P<.001). The eVisit was also shorter, taking on an average of only 10 min to deliver follow-up care with a high degree of patient satisfaction versus 90 (60-112) min for in-person care. The total time saved by patients per eVisit was 80 (50-102) min, 44 (21-69) min of which was travel time. Travel distance avoided by the patients was 30.1 km (11.2-82.2). The estimated total out-of-pocket cost savings for patients per eVisit was Can $52.83 (31.26-94.53). The estimated savings (opportunity cost for in-person outpatient care) for our eVisit pilot project was Can $23,832-$28,584. The patient satisfaction with eVisits was very good compared with their prior personal experience with in-person outpatient care.ConclusionsThe eVisit program was well received by patients, deemed to be safe by physicians, and avoided unnecessary patient travel and expense. It also has the potential to reduce health care costs. We plan to scale the project within the department and the institution.

Virtual care, the use of videoconferencing technology to connect with patients, has become critical in providing continuing care for patients during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual care has now been adopted by health care providers across the spectrum, including physicians, residents, nurse practitioners, nurses, and allied health care professionals. Virtual care is novel and nuanced compared to in-person care. Most of the health care providers who are delivering or expected to deliver virtual care have little to no prior experience with it. The nuances of virtual care involve regulatory standards, platforms, technology and troubleshooting, patient selection, etiquette, and workflow, all of which comprise critical points in the provision of health care. It is important to consistently deliver high-quality, equitable, and professional virtual care to inspire patients with the trust they need to continue follow-up of their care in these difficult times. We have been adopting virtual care in our clinical practice for over two years. In partnership with Canada Health Infoway, we have assembled a primer for virtual care that can serve as a guide for any health care provider in Canada and globally, with the goal of providing seamless transitions between in-person and virtual care.

Background Patients undergoing endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke may require general anesthesia to undergo the procedure. At present, there is little clinical evidence to guide the choice of anesthetic in this acute setting. The clinical implications of experimental studies demonstrating anesthetic neuroprotection are poorly understood. Here, the authors evaluated the impact of anesthetic treatment on neurologic outcome in experimental stroke. Methods Controlled studies of anesthetics in stroke using the filament occlusion model were identified in electronic databases up to December 15, 2015. The primary outcome measures, infarct volume, and neurologic deficit score were used to calculate the normalized mean difference for each comparison. Meta-analysis of normalized mean difference values provided estimates of neuroprotection and contributions of predefined factors: study quality, the timing of treatment, and the duration of ischemia. Results In 80 retrieved publications anesthetic treatment reduced neurologic injury by 28% (95% CI, 24 to 32%; P &lt; 0.0001). Internal validity was high: publication bias enhanced the effect size by 4% or less, effect size increased with study quality (P = 0.0004), and approximately 70% of studies were adequately powered. Apart from study quality, no predefined factor influenced neuroprotection. Neuroprotection failed in animals with comorbidities. Neuroprotection by anesthetics was associated with prosurvival mechanisms. Conclusions Anesthetic neuroprotection is a robust finding in studies using the filament occlusion model of ischemic stroke and should be assumed to influence outcomes in studies using this model. Neuroprotection failed in female animals and animals with comorbidities, suggesting that the results in young male animals may not reflect human stroke.