4.4 Review

Managing patients using telerheumatology: Lessons from a pandemic

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2021.101662

Keywords

Telerheumatology; COVID-19; Rheumatology; Telemedicine; Telehealth; Remote consultation/methods; Health services accessibility; Diagnosis; Rheumatic diseases/diagnosis; Rheumatic diseases/therapy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the widespread adoption of telerheumatology technology in rheumatology practice, despite existing evidence supporting its application in the field. Innovative approaches using remote technology to assist in the care of rheumatology patients have been introduced, but challenges such as regulatory issues and limitations still exist during the implementation process.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented unique challenges to rheumatology provision. Measures to control the pandemic have limited face-to-face contact with rheumatology healthcare professionals. One innovation has been the widespread adoption of telerheumatology to assist in the care of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, building on an existing evidence base in rheumatology. Widespread adoption has only occurred following the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss the evidence supporting telerheumatology adoption prior to the pandemic, and outline several innovative approaches used to assist in the care of rheumatology patients that have been introduced. Alongside the advantages of these interventions, we discuss the limitations and regulatory challenges. Advances must be balanced, considering wider issues of equity of access, implementation, adoption, and sustainability of telerheumatology post-pandemic. We propose it is not 'if', but 'how' rheumatologists embrace newer telerheumatology technology, outlining practice points and future research agenda. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available