Search

Background: While the use of telemedicine had been expanding before the initial outbreak of COVID-19, the pandemic has dramatically accelerated its implementation and expanded its usage in many hospitals. Tele-intensive care unit (ICU) is a specialized type of telemedicine that adapts available technologies to the unique needs of critically ill patients. We published an editorial in 2020 describing our initial experiences of Tele-ICU application in Shandong Province. Here, we update our insights gained over the past 2 years, and we provide a systematic review of the literature to compare our perspectives with those from other institutions. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review of publications describing the use of telemedicine in an ICU setting during COVID-19. The PubMed database was searched for studies published after January 1, 2020, which offered detailed descriptions of tele-ICU usage. Extracted data included details regarding tele-ICU technologies, descriptions of the institution, usage cases, assessments of tele-ICU effectiveness, and site-reported opinions (e.g., advantages, disadvantages). Results: We screened 162 studies resulting from the PubMed literature search, along with one expert recommendation. Of the 112 full-text articles retrieved, 11 were selected for inclusion in this qualitative summary. All were retrospective descriptions of tele-ICU experiences at a single site. Some pairs of included articles reported results from the same institution, with seven unique sites being described. Three sites employed centralized models of tele-ICU, while four allowed staff to participate from distant locations. Five sites collected user-reported feedback regarding tele-ICU. While the advantages and disadvantages described rarely overlapped directly between sites, many reported positive opinions of tele-ICU use overall. Conclusions: The potential applications of tele-ICU technologies vary widely, making them highly adaptable to the needs of individual institutions. Tele-ICU has proven invaluable to some hospitals during COVID-19 due to its effectiveness at aiding patient care while mitigating risk to health care workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since 1990s, directly observed therapy (DOT) has been the standard-of-care for tuberculosis (TB), although it is cumbersome for patients as well as service providers. For raising implementation, an alternative delivery method with good potential is telehealth. The current study assessed the clinical and cost benefit of video directly observed therapy (VDOT), compared with DOT service. Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial randomized adults with bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary TB to the intervention (VDOT) or control (DOT) group. The observation data for DOT and VDOT were updated by observers until the end of treatment or until the study concluded. The primary outcome was the TB treatment result defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as used in some other studies conducted in North India and England as follows: good (cured and treatment completed), poor (death and failure), relocation, and lost to follow-up and others (refused, adverse reaction, not a TB case). Other secondary measures were treatment adherence, patient satisfaction, time and cost spent on DOT or VDOT. Results: On analyzing the results from 405 participants from each study arm, we found very high rates of treatment completion (96.1% with VDOT vs. 94.6% with DOT). The two observed treatment methods had no statistical differences, and all could accomplish their tasks well. Average time per dose observed was 16.5 min (standard deviation [SD] 12.1) for VDOT, while 44.1 min (SD 3.7) for DOT (including travel time), p < 0.01. And the cost incurred on VDOT was ￥34.3 (SD 3.8) manmo, which was statistically lower compared with ￥71.6 (SD 49.7) manmo in the DOT group, p < 0.01. Most of the patients in both groups believed that observed treatment (VDOT/DOT) helped them not to miss doses (185 [93.0%] vs. 171 [86.7%], p = 0.057). Patients in the VDOT group had a better experience compared with those in DOT group. They thought the way was convenient and comfortable (191 [96.0%] vs. 111 [56.6%], p < 0.001), would choose the original way if necessary (191 [96.0%] vs. 113 [57.7%], p < 0.001), and would recommend the method to other patients (191 [96.0%] vs. 113 [57.7%], p < 0.001). Conclusion: The study showed that VDOT enabled meaningful direct observation for TB patients through mobile devices, which was highly acceptable to patients and health care providers. It also saved time and is a cost-effective method, enabling the use of the saved money to other much-needed areas for TB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]