3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Self-risk assessment for patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The COVID-19 pandemic is the biggest challenge faced by health services worldwide for over a century. As the deadly capability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) became known, the UK Government and England's National Health Service (NHS) announced the need to identify individuals thought to be at a increased risk of developing severe manifestations of COVID-19, including patients receiving immunosuppressant therapies. 1 The key aim was to advise susceptible individuals of the need to minimise their infection risk by following strict physical distancing or so-called shielding guidance. As a result, clinicians across the UK were challenged to identify and disseminate urgent information almost overnight to a targeted group of patients within the constraints of current NHS systems. Like our colleagues in Wolverhampton, 2 we were acutely aware of the challenge created by the lack of accurate coding of rheumatological diagnosis and current medication within the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, prompting us to develop a multilayered strategy to communicate with our patients asking them to self-assess their COVID-19 risk. After collating the information cascaded by regulatory authorities, the British Society for Rheumatology, and other medical societies, we created a series of guidance materials related to COVID-19 for rheumatology patients. We developed a patient-friendly self-risk assessment algorithm and presented it in an animated, home-recorded video using PowerPoint (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA),3, 4, 5 with all materials then uploaded onto the hospital website. Patients in the rheumatology department's outpatient waiting list were directed to this website via an SMS (text) message, which was sent to 10 612 patients, followed by a dispatch of 948 letters to those who could not access the message via SMS. Consent to be approached via SMS is recorded and renewed during routine outpatient reviews in our NHS trust. The video was uploaded onto YouTube.com 3, 4, 5 and shared via Twitter. As of May 7, 2020, 6 weeks into the UK lockdown, the Leeds risk stratification video had been viewed 5442 times, and 1568 patients have identified themselves as high risk by filling in a dedicated e-form on our website. Furthermore, the locally produced algorithm and video have been adopted or modified by rheumatology colleagues in other centres and patient charities in the UK and abroad. We believe that self-stratification has other benefits for rheumatology patients, particularly when treatment might have changed since their last hospital visit. Our tool emphasises that patients should be aware of the importance of glucocorticoids as an infection risk, with 5 mg or more of prednisolone increasing the risk stratification at each line of therapy, and that patients should be particularly scrupulous in their implementation of physical distancing. 6 This therapy is often erroneously considered to be safer than disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs by both patients and non-specialist doctors. Conversely, both patients and physicians often misunderstand that reducing all immunosuppressant therapies would reduce infection risk, so we felt it was important to emphasis that reducing therapy might be counter-productive since untreated disease, or the treatments needed to control flares, could be more deleterious than stable non-glucocorticoid immunosuppressants. These considerations exemplify how guided self-management can lead to constructive patient education. The main limitation of this approach is the fact that susceptible patients, including older individuals, might have no access to modern technologies including the internet and smartphones, and might find themselves overwhelmed by the amount of information provided in paper form. Evaluation of the effect of the tool is difficult at present because we cannot assess what proportion of patients correctly identified themselves as high risk or whether this self-identification led to behavioural change; however, analysis to answer these questions is now underway. This is the first time in its 70-year history that the capacity of response of the NHS has been tested to such a scale. We have been positively surprised by the flexibility and agility of the system to introduce drastic change rapidly. Additionally, in our experience, patient engagement was encouraging and prompt, with 1307 unique views of the video within the first 48 h of publishing. As the country enters the next phase of response, new ways of working should consider direct patient empowerment as a major catalyst for delivering safe and effective care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references2

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Common Infections in Patients Prescribed Systemic Glucocorticoids in Primary Care: A Population-Based Cohort Study

          Background Little is known about the relative risk of common bacterial, viral, fungal, and parasitic infections in the general population of individuals exposed to systemic glucocorticoids, or about the impact of glucocorticoid exposure duration and predisposing factors on this risk. Methods and Findings The hazard ratios of various common infections were assessed in 275,072 adults prescribed glucocorticoids orally for ≥15 d (women: 57.8%, median age: 63 [interquartile range 48–73] y) in comparison to those not prescribed glucocorticoids. For each infection, incidence rate ratios were calculated for five durations of exposure (ranging from 15–30 d to >12 mo), and risk factors were assessed. Data were extracted from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) primary care database. When compared to those with the same underlying disease but not exposed to glucocorticoids, the adjusted hazard ratios for infections with significantly higher risk in the glucocorticoid-exposed population ranged from 2.01 (95% CI 1.83–2.19; p < 0.001) for cutaneous cellulitis to 5.84 (95% CI 5.61–6.08; p < 0.001) for lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). There was no difference in the risk of scabies, dermatophytosis and varicella. The relative increase in risk was stable over the durations of exposure, except for LRTI and local candidiasis, for which it was much higher during the first weeks of exposure. The risks of infection increased with age and were higher in those with diabetes, in those prescribed higher glucocorticoid doses, and in those with lower plasma albumin level. Most associations were also dependent on the underlying disease. A sensitivity analysis conducted on all individuals except those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease produced similar results. Another sensitivity analysis assessing the impact of potential unmeasured confounders such as disease severity or concomitant prescription of chemotherapy suggested that it was unlikely that adjusting for these potential confounders would have radically changed the findings. Limitations of our study include the use of electronic medical records, which could have resulted in some degree of misclassification of the infectious outcomes; a possible reporting bias, as general practitioners could be more prone to record an infection in those exposed to glucocorticoids; and a low number of events for some outcomes such as scabies or varicella, which may have led to limited statistical power. Conclusions The relative risk of LRTI and local candidiasis is very high during the first weeks of glucocorticoid exposure. Further studies are needed to assess whether low albumin level is a risk factor for infection by itself (e.g., by being associated with a higher free glucocorticoid fraction) or whether it reflects other underlying causes of general debilitation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rapid distribution of information by SMS-embedded video link to patients during a pandemic

            Urgent communication of targeted health-care information to at-risk patient groups is a challenge. Novel technologies now allow video links, interactive resources, and electronic evaluations to be distributed by SMS (text) messages. Patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease might be at particular risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the UK, advice for patients with these conditions has been coordinated by Public Health England, focusing on a high-risk group that requires strict social isolation (“shielding”).1, 2 Rheumatologists were presented with a 40-component physician-scored tool to risk-stratify patients under follow-up by the British Society for Rheumatology. They were also requested to advise patients on therapy, such as corticosteroid use, during sickness. A particular challenge in the UK highlighted by regulatory authorities is that, despite the use of electronic patient records, data about rheumatology patients are fragmented (prescriptions for biologics and some disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are electronically coded in secondary care patient records and comorbidities in primary care records), preventing centralised national identification of at-risk groups. 3 Modern e-learning publishing platforms—which are already in use in education of health professionals—allow publication, distribution, and user metrics of multimedia resources sent via a single, sharable web-link. We present a proof of principle for this new methodology, already at use in our hospital, 4 used as a means of informing and educating patients in a large secondary care rheumatology service in the UK. This intervention aimed to communicate a patient-led risk score via an SMS link to a web-based instructional video. The educational content was adapted from physician-led national guidance,1, 2 and included a simple 4-step risk score along with other advice. This method allowed patients to self-identify if they were at high risk (ie, that they should classify themselves as in the “shielding” group). 3 We developed a series of iterations, encompassing changing national guidance, piloted and shared with rheumatologists, our patient participation group, and a national charity. The final iteration included the score, an animated worked example, and information from regulatory bodies and specialist societies. 4 We used an established educational e-learning tool to record and publish our online video (iSpring Suite, iSpring Solutions, 2019). 5 For patient contact, we used an existing database of mobile phone numbers that had already been used to send SMS messages to our rheumatology cohort in the past 12 months (March 22, 2019, to March 22, 2020). For the evaluation, we used our institution's SurveyMonkey account to pilot and implement a simple anonymous web-based anonymous patient evaluation. We used Likert scales to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention and its ability to enable participants to self-score. A subset of patients (n=200) was asked about their experiences in more detail, along with age and sex; we limited the sample size because of concerns we had about completion rates for longer questionnaires. We sent the SMS-linked video on day 4 after the national request to contact patients in rheumatology services. 2 Data were collated at day 6, and we analysed responses in line with established methodology. 6 Our main objective was to enable patients to self-score, and the pragmatic primary outcome measure was self-reported ability to risk-stratify. We sent 12 241 SMS video linked messages (day 4); by day 6, we had recorded 5226 (42·6%) video views with 1167 patient evaluations (22·3% viewer response). Of those who completed our evaluation, 1105 (95·6%) of 1156 patients reported successful self-risk stratifying, including those at low risk (237 [20·5%]), those at medium risk (544 [47·1%]), and those at high risk (324 [28·0%]). 1156 (99·1%) of 1167 patients described the impact of the video intervention, with 825 (71·4%) of 1156 reporting behavioural change. Patient satisfaction scores were high on 1–5 Likert scales (where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree). A summary is shown in the table . We shared this resource at no cost with a regional network. Our video was approved and adopted by two large rheumatology units, with one choosing to distribute it using their SMS system. Table Summary results of SMS video assessments and risk-stratification in the patient group Summary results Messages sent 12 241 (100%) Video views 5226 (42·7%) Completed SMS linked evaluations at 48 h for patients who had seen the video 1167/5226 (22·3%) Likert scale responses completed 1158/1167 (99·2%) I was able to understand the scoring system and score myself 4·3 (0·95) I learnt about COVID-19 and how I should manage my arthritis treatment 4·2 (0·96) I was able to play the video on my phone or tablet with no problems 4·4 (1·03) I will change my behaviour because of the information 4·0 (1·01) I thought the video was a helpful way to share information 4·5 (0·94) Risk-stratification responses, utilising published national society scoring system 1156/1167 (99·1%) Self-reported: risk stratification completed 1105/1156 (95·6%) Normal or low risk (0) 237 (20·5%) Medium risk (1–2) 544 (47·1%) High risk (“shielding”; 3 or more) 324 (28·0%) Did not complete self-risk-stratification 51/1156 (4·4%) Unsure (medication, diagnosis, comorbidity, or unlisted) 31 (2·7%) Technical problems with resource or size of text 11 (1·0%) Not yet done 9 (0·8%) Device used to view our video advice Mobile phone 939/1137 (84·3%) Tablet 101/1137 (8·8%) Desktop computer or laptop 77/1137 (6·8%) Sex (asked on a subset of 200 evaluations) Male 62 (31·0%) Female 138 (69·0%) Age (asked on a subset of 200 evaluations) ≤19 years 0 20–29 years 1 (0·5%) 30–39 years 11 (5·5%) 40–49 years 24 (12·0%) 50–59 years 58 (29·0%) 60–69 years 57 (28·5%) ≥70 years 47 (23·5%) Data are n (%) or mean (SD). COVID-19=coronavirus disease 2019. The strengths of this innovative method for communicating with patients are its speed, scale, and positive patient experiences. Large cohorts of patients or individual patient groups can be targeted, and this method appears to be acceptable, low cost (typically £0·01–0·02 per message), and impactful, with striking usability metrics. Unlike more costly paper communication, our video information was revised to reflect evolving national guidance and feedback, always using the same link. 4 Some elements are of particular interest for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic—for example, targeting advice to specific groups, such as patients taking tocilizumab or hydroxychloroquine. There is also wider scope for patient-centred communication in the digital health-care revolution. SMS message options have been reviewed recently; however, our methodology was not described. 5 The only other intervention based on SMS-linked video that we are aware of, in a small selected cohort, did not evaluate the patient experience. 7 Researchers sent 30-sec video clips directly to phones, with an SMS evaluation; however, these could not be recalled or revised. 8 This is the first intervention that we are aware of to adopt SMS-linked video to explore impact in a large patient group. The population is representative of our wider cohort in terms of age and sex. 9 Nonetheless, we have concerns that some of the most vulnerable patients might not have been reachable with this intervention, particularly those without mobile phones or internet access. To try to mitigate this limitation, we made these resources accessible on our departmental web pages, although the uptake there was small. We have received feedback from patients with lower literacy and dyslexia who found our SMS-linked video intervention more helpful than more traditional health-care communication as written text. This innovation was done alongside traditional methods of hand searching biologics registries and drug monitoring systems (for which we had several thousand patients in our cohort). The “shielding” letters to the highest risk groups identified by our manual record search were posted only by day 12, illustrating the delays inherent in traditional approaches. Our methodology might be subject to response bias, with only those patients who benefited choosing to complete our survey. Our response rate is within the expected ranges for this type of survey. 10 For the estimated 15% of our follow-up cohort that do not have an inflammatory autoimmune rheumatic disease that did receive our video, 9 we included other generic advice, such as analgesic use. In summary, this intervention is, to our knowledge, the first of its kind to communicate and evaluate a complex public health message at large scale by use of SMS-linked video. The high acceptability and patient satisfaction scores indicate that this intervention is a potential tool for rheumatology departments to contact selected patients, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This work demonstrates that SMS-linked technology is well placed to assist physicians, and might be of interest to national advisory bodies, hospitals, and primary care groups when planning mass health-care communication.
              Bookmark

              Author and article information

              Contributors
              Journal
              Lancet Rheumatol
              Lancet Rheumatol
              The Lancet Rheumatology
              Elsevier Ltd.
              2665-9913
              1 June 2020
              1 June 2020
              Affiliations
              [a ]National Institute for Health Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
              [b ]Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, LS7 4SA, UK
              [c ]Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, LS7 4SA, UK
              Article
              S2665-9913(20)30163-6
              10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30163-6
              7263817
              dbe0a7e6-6c97-4fec-8bf4-6ab81bcdcb18
              © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

              Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

              History
              Categories
              Article

              Comments

              Comment on this article