Explore the vast range of titles available.

Telemedicine can help mitigate important health care challenges, such as demographic changes and the current COVID-19 pandemic, in high-income countries such as Germany. It gives physicians and patients the opportunity to interact via video consultations, regardless of their location, thus offering cost and time savings for both sides. We aimed to investigate whether telemedicine can be implemented efficiently in the follow-up care for patients in orthopedic and trauma surgery, with respect to patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, and quality of care. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial in a German university hospital and enrolled 60 patients with different knee and shoulder conditions. For follow-up appointments, patients received either an in-person consultation in the clinic (control group) or a video consultation with their physician (telemedicine group). Patients' and physicians' subsequent evaluations of these follow-up appointments were collected and assessed using separate questionnaires. On the basis of data from 52 consultations after 8 withdrawals, it was found that patients were slightly more satisfied with video consultations (mean 1.58, SD 0.643) than with in-clinic consultations (mean 1.64, SD 0.569), although the difference was not statistically significant (P=.69). After excluding video consultations marred by technical problems, no significant difference was found in physician satisfaction between the groups (mean 1.47, SD 0.516 vs mean 1.32, SD 0.557; P=.31). Further analysis indicated that telemedicine can be applied to broader groups of patients and that patients who have prior experience with telemedicine are more willing to use telemedicine for follow-up care. Telemedicine can be an alternative and efficient form of follow-up care for patients in orthopedic and trauma surgery in Germany, and it has no significant disadvantages compared with in-person consultations in the clinic. German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023445; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023445.

Telephone triage is increasingly used to manage workload in primary care; however, supporting evidence for this approach is scarce. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost consequences of general practitioner-(GP)-led and nurse-led telephone triage compared with usual care for patients seeking same-day consultations in primary care. We did a pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation between March 1, 2011, and March 31, 2013, at 42 practices in four centres in the UK. Practices were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence minimised for geographical location, practice deprivation, and practice list size, to either GP-led triage, nurse-led computer-supported triage, or usual care. We included patients who telephoned the practice seeking a same-day face-to-face consultation with a GP. Allocations were concealed from practices until after they had agreed to participate and a stochastic element was included within the minimisation algorithm to maintain concealment. Patients, clinicians, and researchers were not masked to allocation, but practice assignment was concealed from the trial statistician. The primary outcome was primary care workload (patient contacts, including those attending accident and emergency departments) in the 28 days after the first same-day request. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN register, number ISRCTN20687662. We randomly assigned 42 practices to GP triage (n=13), nurse triage (n=15), or usual care (n=14), and 20 990 patients (n=6695 vs 7012 vs 7283) were randomly assigned, of whom 16 211 (77%) patients provided primary outcome data (n=5171 vs 5468 vs 5572). GP triage was associated with a 33% increase in the mean number of contacts per person over 28 days compared with usual care (2·65 [SD 1·74] vs 1·91 [1·43]; rate ratio [RR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·30–1·36), and nurse triage with a 48% increase (2·81 [SD 1·68]; RR 1·48, 95% CI 1·44–1·52). Eight patients died within 7 days of the index request: five in the GP-triage group, two in the nurse-triage group, and one in the usual-care group; however, these deaths were not associated with the trial group or procedures. Although triage interventions were associated with increased contacts, estimated costs over 28 days were similar between all three groups (roughly £75 per patient). Introduction of telephone triage delivered by a GP or nurse was associated with an increase in the number of primary care contacts in the 28 days after a patient's request for a same-day GP consultation, with similar costs to those of usual care. Telephone triage might be useful in aiding the delivery of primary care. The whole-system implications should be assessed when introduction of such a system is considered. Health Technology Assessment Programme UK National Institute for Health Research.

The feasibility of telemedicine in diagnosing and treating nonacute headaches, such as primary headaches (migraine and tension-type) and medication-overuse headaches has not been previously investigated. By eliminating the need of travel to specialists, telemedicine may offer significant time and money savings. Our objective was to estimate the acceptance of telemedicine and investigate the feasibility and cost savings of telemedicine consultations in diagnosing and treating nonacute headaches. From September 2012 to March 2015, nonacute headache patients from Northern Norway who were referred to neurologists through an electronic application system were consecutively screened and randomized to participate in either telemedicine or traditional specialist visits. All patients were consulted by two neurologists at the neurological department in Tromsø University Hospital. Feasibility outcomes were compared between telemedicine and traditional groups. Baseline characteristics and costs were then compared between rural and urban patients. Travel costs were calculated by using the probabilistic method of the Norwegian traveling agency: the cheapest means of public transport for each study participant. Loss of pay was calculated based on the Norwegian full-time employee's average salary: < 3.5 hours=a half day's salary, > 3.5 hours spent on travel and consultation=one day's salary. Distance and time spent on travel were estimated by using Google Maps. Of 557 headache patients screened, 479 were found eligible and 402 accepted telemedicine participation (83.9%, 402/479) and were included in the final analyses. Of these, 202 received traditional specialist consultations and 200 received telemedicine. All patients in the telemedicine group were satisfied with the video quality, and 198 (99%, 198/200) were satisfied with the sound quality. The baseline characteristics as well as headache diagnostics and follow-up appointments, and the investigation, advice, and prescription practices were not statistically different between the two randomized groups. In addition, telemedicine consultations were shorter than traditional visits (38.8 vs 43.7 min, P<.001). The travel cost per rural individual (292/402, 73%) was €249, and estimated lost income was €234 per visit. The travel cost in the urban area (110/402, 27%) was €6, and estimated lost income was €117 per visit. The median traveling distance for rural patients was 526 km (range 1892 km), and the median traveling time was 7.8 hours (range 27.3 hours). Rural patients had a longer waiting time than urban patients (64 vs 47 days, P=.001), and fewer women were referred from rural areas (P=.04). Rural women reported higher pain scores than urban women (P=.005). Our study shows that telemedicine is an accepted, feasible, time-saving, and cost-saving alternative to traditional specialist consultations for nonacute headaches. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02270177; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02270177 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6hmoHGo9Q).

ObjectivesTo test the long-term effectiveness of a total diet replacement programme (TDR) for routine treatment of obesity in a primary care setting.MethodsThis study was a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, open-label, individually randomised controlled trial in adults with obesity. The outcomes were change in weight and biomarkers of diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk from baseline to 3 years, analysed as intention-to-treat with mixed effects models.InterventionsThe intervention was TDR for 8 weeks, followed by food-reintroduction over 4 weeks. Behavioural support was provided weekly for 8 weeks, bi-weekly for the next 4 weeks, then monthly for 3 months after which no further support was provided. The usual care (UC) group received dietary advice and behavioural support from a practice nurse for up to 3 months.ResultsOutcome measures were collected from 179 (66%) participants. Compared with baseline, at 3 years the TDR group lost −6.2 kg (SD 9.1) and usual care −2.7 kg (SD 7.7); adjusted mean difference −3.3 kg (95% CI: −5.2, −1.5), p < 0.0001. Regain from programme end (6 months) to 3 years was greater in TDR group +8.9 kg (SD 9.4) than UC + 1.2, (SD 9.1); adjusted mean difference +6.9 kg (95% CI 4.2, 9.5) P < 0.001. At 3 years TDR led to greater reductions than UC in diastolic blood pressure (mean difference −3.3 mmHg (95% CI:−6.2; −0.4) P = 0.024), and systolic blood pressure (mean differences −3.7 mmHg (95% CI: −7.4; 0.1) P = 0.057). There was no evidence of differences between groups in the change from baseline to 3 years HbA1c (−1.9 mmol/mol (95% CI: −0.7; 4.5; P = 0.15), LDL cholesterol concentrations (0.2 mmol/L (95% CI −0.3, 0.7) P = 0.39), cardiovascular risk score (QRISK2) (−0.37 (95% CI −0.96; 0.22); P = 0.22).ConclusionsTreatment of people with obesity with a TDR programme compared with support from a practice nurse leads to greater weight loss which persists to at least 3 years, but there was only evidence of sustained improvements in BP and not in other aspects of cardiometabolic risk.

Evidence exist that primary care referral to an open-group behavioural programme is an effective strategy for management of obesity, but little evidence on optimal intervention duration is available. We aimed to establish whether 52-week referral to an open-group weight-management programme would achieve greater weight loss and improvements in a range of health outcomes and be more cost-effective than the current practice of 12-week referrals. In this non-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we recruited participants who were aged 18 years or older and had body-mass index (BMI) of 28 kg/m2 or higher from 23 primary care practices in England. Participants were randomly assigned (2:5:5) to brief advice and self-help materials, a weight-management programme (Weight Watchers) for 12 weeks, or the same weight-management programme for 52 weeks. We followed-up participants over 2 years. The primary outcome was weight at 1 year of follow-up, analysed with mixed-effects models according to intention-to-treat principles and adjusted for centre and baseline weight. In a hierarchical closed-testing procedure, we compared combined behavioural programme arms with brief intervention, then compared the 12-week programme and 52-week programme. We did a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis using person-level data and modelled outcomes over a 25-year time horizon using microsimulation. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN82857232. Between Oct 18, 2012, and Feb 10, 2014, we enrolled 1269 participants. 1267 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the brief intervention (n=211), the 12-week programme (n=528), and the 52-week programme (n=528). Two participants in the 12-week programme had been found to be ineligible shortly after randomisation and were excluded from the analysis. 823 (65%) of 1267 participants completed an assessment at 1 year and 856 (68%) participants at 2 years. All eligible participants were included in the analyses. At 1 year, mean weight changes in the groups were −3·26 kg (brief intervention), −4·75 kg (12-week programme), and −6·76 kg (52-week programme). Participants in the behavioural programme lost more weight than those in the brief intervention (adjusted difference −2·71 kg, 95% CI −3·86 to −1·55; p<0·0001). The 52-week programme was more effective than the 12-week programme (−2·14 kg, −3·05 to −1·22; p<0·0001). Differences between groups were still significant at 2 years. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. Over 2 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; compared with brief intervention) was £159 per kg lost for the 52-week programme and £91 per kg for the 12-week programme. Modelled over 25 years after baseline, the ICER for the 12-week programme was dominant compared with the brief intervention. The ICER for the 52-week programme was cost-effective compared with the brief intervention (£2394 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and the 12-week programme (£3804 per QALY). For adults with overweight or obesity, referral to this open-group behavioural weight-loss programme for at least 12 weeks is more effective than brief advice and self-help materials. A 52-week programme produces greater weight loss and other clinical benefits than a 12-week programme and, although it costs more, modelling suggests that the 52-week programme is cost-effective in the longer term. National Prevention Research Initiative, Weight Watchers International (as part of an UK Medical Research Council Industrial Collaboration Award).

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first reported in Wuhan, China, where the initial wave of intense community transmissions was cut short by interventions. Using multiple data sources, here we estimate the disease burden and clinical severity by age of COVID-19 in Wuhan from December 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. Our estimates account for the sensitivity of the laboratory assays, prospective community screenings, and healthcare seeking behaviors. Rates of symptomatic cases, medical consultations, hospitalizations and deaths were estimated at 796 (95% CI: 703–977), 489 (472–509), 370 (358–384), and 36.2 (35.0–37.3) per 100,000 persons, respectively. The COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan had a higher burden than the 2009 influenza pandemic or seasonal influenza in terms of hospitalization and mortality rates, and clinical severity was similar to that of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Our comparison puts the COVID-19 pandemic into context and could be helpful to guide intervention strategies and preparedness for the potential resurgence of COVID-19. Here the authors analyze disease burden and clinical severity of COVID-19 during the first wave in Wuhan, China in comparison to past influenza virus pandemics and COVID-19 in the US and Canada. These estimates of symptomatic cases, medical consultations, hospitalizations and deaths should guide preparedness for this disease.

Purpose Critical illness is associated with long-term increased mortality and impaired quality of life (QoL). We assessed whether multidisciplinary consultations would improve outcome at 12 months (M12) after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge.Methods We performed an open, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Eligible are patients discharged alive from ICU in 11 French hospitals between 2012 and 2018. The intervention group had a multidisciplinary face-to-face consultation involving an intensivist, a psychologist, and a social worker at ICU discharge and then at M3 and M6 (optional). The control group had standard post-ICU follow-up. A consultation was scheduled at M12 for all patients. The QoL was assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Level (Euro-QoL-5D-5L) which includes five dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, and anxiety/depression), each ranging from 1 to 5 (1: no, 2: slight, 3: moderate, 4: severe, and 5: extreme problems). The primary endpoint was poor clinical outcome defined as death or severe-to-extreme impairment of at least one EuroQoL-5D-5L dimension at M12. The information was collected by a blinded investigator by phone. Secondary outcomes were functional, psychological, and cognitive status at M12 consultation.Results 540 patients were included (standard, n = 272; multidisciplinary, n = 268). The risk for a poor outcome was significantly greater in the multidisciplinary group than in the standard group [adjusted odds ratio 1.49 (95% confidence interval, (1.04–2.13)]. Seventy-two (13.3%) patients died at M12 (standard, n = 32; multidisciplinary, n = 40). The functional, psychological, and cognitive scores at M12 did not statistically differ between groups.Conclusions A hospital-based, face-to-face, intensivist-led multidisciplinary consultation at ICU discharge then at 3 and 6 months was associated with poor outcome 1 year after ICU.

Referral networks are critical in the timely delivery of surgical care, particularly for populations residing in rural areas who have limited access to specialist services. However, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) referral networks are often undermined by systemic inefficiencies. If equitable access to essential surgical services is to be achieved, sound evidence is needed to ensure efficient patient care pathways. The aim of this scoping review was to investigate current knowledge regarding inter-hospital surgical referral systems in LMICs to identify the main obstacles to their functioning and to critically assess proposed solutions. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health databases and grey literature were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The search generated 2261 unique records, of which 14 studies were selected for inclusion in the review. The narrative synthesis of retrieved data is based on a conceptual framework developed though a thematic analysis approach. Multiple shortages in surgical infrastructure, equipment and personnel, as well as gaps in surgical and decision-making skills of clinicians at sending hospitals, act as obstacles to safe and appropriate referrals. Comprehensive protocols for surgical referrals are lacking in most LMICs and established patient pathways, when in place, are not correctly followed. Interventions to improve coordination and communication between different level facilities may enhance efficiency of referral pathways. Strengthening capacity of referring hospitals to manage more surgical conditions locally could improve outcomes, decrease the need for referral and reduce the burden on tertiary facilities. The field of surgical referrals is still an uncharted territory and the limited empirical evidence available is of low quality. Developing strategies for assessing functionality and effectiveness of referral systems in surgery is essential to improve access, coverage and quality of services in resource-limited settings, as well as overall health systems performance.

Well-Child Care (WCC) is the provision of preventive health care services for children and their families. Prior research has highlighted that several barriers exist for the provision of WCC services. To study \"real life\" visits of parents and children with health professionals in order to enhance the theoretical understanding of factors affecting WCC. Participant observations of a cross-sectional sample of 71 visits at three general practices were analysed using a mixed-methods approach. The median age of the children was 18 months (IQR, 6-36 months), and the duration of visits was 13 mins (IQR, 9-18 mins). The reasons for the visits were immunisation in 13 (18.5%), general check-up in 10 (13.8%), viral illness in 33 (49.2%) and miscellaneous reasons in 15 (18.5%). Two clusters with low and high WCC emerged; WCC was associated with higher GP patient-centeredness scores, younger age of the child, fewer previous visits, immunisation and general check-up visits, and the solo general practitioner setting. Mothers born overseas received less WCC advice, while longer duration of visit increased WCC. GPs often made observations on physical growth and development and negotiated mothers concerns to provide reassurance to them. The working style of the GP which encouraged informal conversations with the parents enhanced WCC. There was a lack of systematic use of developmental screening measures. GPs and practice nurses are providing parent/child centered WCC in many visits, particularly when parents present for immunisation and general check-ups. Providing funding and practice nurse support to GPs, and aligning WCC activities with all immunisation visits, rather than just a one-off screening approach, appears to be the best way forward. A cluster randomised trial for doing structured WCC activities with immunisation visits would provide further evidence for cost-effectiveness studies to inform policy change.