Telehealth in rheumatology: the 2021 Arab League of Rheumatology Best Practice Guidelines

Rheumatology in the digital health era: status quo and quo vadis?

Rheumatology faces a critical shortage of health-care professionals, exacerbated by an ageing patient population and escalating costs, resulting in widening gaps in care. Exponential advances in digital health technologies (DHTs) in the past 5 years offer new opportunities to address these challenges and could contribute to overall improved health care. However, keeping pace with innovations and integrating them into clinical practice can be challenging. This Review explores the transformative potential of DHTs for rheumatology in reshaping the entire patient pathway and redefining the roles of patients and providers, and discusses the potential barriers to DHT integration. Key technologies, such as large language models, clinical decision-support systems, digital therapeutics, electronic patient-reported outcomes, digital biomarkers, robots, self-sampling devices and artificial intelligence-based scribes, can be implemented along the patient pathway. A digital-first hybrid stepped-care patient pathway could combine in-person and remote care, enabling personalized and continuous monitoring through a digital safety net. The potential benefits and risks of transforming the traditional patient-provider relationship into a digital health triad with technology are discussed. Collaborative efforts are needed to navigate the evolving digital health landscape and harness the potential of DHTs to improve rheumatology care.

Telerehabilitation: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and future perspectives

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an enormous effect on healthcare, notably rehabilitation for neurological, rheumatological, musculoskeletal, and cognitive diseases. Telerehabilitation provides rehabilitation services via multiple modalities, such as real-time chats, computerized consultations, and distant evaluations, emphasizing assessment, diagnosis, and intervention. While the use of telerehabilitation had restrictions before COVID-19, regulatory changes have accelerated its adoption, broadening therapy provision beyond traditional healthcare settings. Telerehabilitation has been examined for its effectiveness in a variety of health concerns, including stroke, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson's disease, musculoskeletal disorders, and rheumatic diseases. Despite the constraints of the COVID-19 environment, telerehabilitation settings, which include patient and therapist aspects, have emerged to ensure optimal treatment delivery. Key themes include home-based rehabilitation initiatives, wearable gadgets, and the integration of analytics and artificial intelligence. The growing acceptance of telehealth and telerehabilitation is expected to drive further progress in this discipline.

From Sand to Excellence: A Deep Dive into Abu Dhabi's Rheumatology Landscape

The Emirate of Abu Dhabi (AD) is the capital and largest emirate of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The emirate's economic significance stems from non-oil and oil contributions to GDP. The 2022 GDP of Abu Dhabi was USD 230 billion. The government provides services to its residents through digital platforms such as official websites. The Abu Dhabi Health Insurance Law No. 23 of 2005 mandates that residents have access to necessary medical care and services. There is a paucity in the literature on the available rheumatology services in the Arab region. This review article aims to explore the status of rheumatology services in AD for both residents and visitors. It will include an overview of paediatric and adult rheumatology care, accessibility of diagnostic procedures, the integration of electronic medical records, access to medications, the status of postgraduate education, research, and suggestions on how to enhance rheumatology services in AD as a destination for medical tourism.

Selection of criteria for a telemedicine framework for designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating telemedicine interventions: Validation using a modified Delphi process

Objectives

The call to scale up telemedicine services globally as part of the digital health transformation lacks an agreed-upon set of constructs to guide the implementation process. A lack of guidance hinders the development, consolidation, sustainability and optimisation of telemedicine services. The study aims to reach consensus among telemedicine experts on a set of implementation constructs to be developed into an evidence-based support tool.

Methods

A modified Delphi study was conducted to evaluate a set of evidence-informed telemedicine implementation constructs comprising cores, domains and items. The study evaluated the constructs consisting of five cores: Assessment of the Current Situation, Development of a Telemedicine Strategy, Development of Organisational Changes, Development of a Telemedicine Service, and Monitoring, Evaluation and Optimisation of Telemedicine Implementation; seven domains: Individual Readiness, Organisational Readiness, Clinical, Economic, Technological and Infrastructure, Regulation, and Monitoring, Evaluation and Optimisation; divided into 53 items. Global telemedicine specialists (n = 247) were invited to participate and evaluate 58 questions. Consensus was set at ≥70%.

Results

Forty-five experts completed the survey. Consensus was reached on 78% of the constructs evaluated. Regarding the core constructs, Monitoring, Evaluation and Optimisation of Telemedicine Implementation was determined to be the most important one, and Development of a Telemedicine Strategy the least. As for the domains, the Clinical one had the highest level of consensus, and the Economic one had the lowest.

Conclusions

This research advances the field of telemedicine, providing expert consensus on a set of implementation constructs. The findings also highlight considerable divergence in expert opinion on the constructs of reimbursement and incentive mechanisms, resistance to change, and telemedicine champions. The lack of agreement on these constructs warrants attention and may partly explain the barriers that telemedicine services continue to face in the implementation process.

Teleconsultation in rheumatology: A literature review and opinion paper

In this article, we review published literature on "telerheumatology", a term describing the use of telemedicine in rheumatology. This field has received considerable recent attention through the development of efficient digital technologies, resulting in a good level of satisfaction among patients and health care professionals. In 2020, the social distancing constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated more widespread adoption worldwide. Telerheumatology is particularly suited for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have achieved a sustained therapeutic target of remission or low disease activity. To facilitate remote consultations and meet expectations of rheumatologists and patients, international and national guidelines have recently been proposed and existing tools, such as Patient-Reported Outcomes questionnaires, have had to be digitally adapted. In addition, telerheumatology toolkits are proposed by the Arab League of Associations for Rheumatology (ArLAR), the Association of American Medical College (AAMC), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) for all learners, from medical students to practicing clinicians, encouraging the acquisition of telehealth skills and facilitating their integration into their routine clinical practice. The main benefits reported for this mode of health care are greater access to specialty care, flexibility, reduced rates of missed appointments, as well as improved patient engagement and autonomy. Limitations include the absence of physical examination. However, to implement telerheumatology effectively and widely in daily clinical practice, some barriers still need to be addressed. These include training of health care professionals, technological restrictions and reimbursement mechanisms. Despite the advantages of telerheumatology, it is not intended to replace face-to-face visits, but rather as a way to enhance access to care, service delivery and health care support for patients.

Comparison of Teleconsultations and In-Person Consultations from Outpatients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Internal Audit of Medical Notes

Introduction: The objectives of this study were to compare the quality-of-care and compliance with medical record regulations between in-person consultations (QIP and CIP) and telephone consultations (QTP and CTP), from rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outpatients, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore the impact of the consultation modality on the treatment. Methods: Data from 324 medical notes corresponding to rheumatic consultations between July and December 2020 were abstracted. Notes were selected considering a stratified (in-person and telephone consultations) random sampling strategy. QIP, CIP, QTP, and CTP were scored based on prespecified criteria as percentages, where higher numbers translated into better standards. Logistic regression analysis investigated the association between the consultation modality and the treatment recommendation (dependent variable). Results: There were 208 (64.2%) medical notes related to in-person consultations and 114 (35.2%) to telephone consultations. Overall, medical notes corresponded to middle-aged women with long-standing disease. QIP was superior to QTP (median, interquartile range): 60% (60-75%) versus 50% (25-60%), p ≤ 0.001, and differences were related to disease activity and prognosis documentation (81.3% vs. 34.5% and 55.8% vs. 33.6%, respectively, p ≤ 0.001) and the prolonged prescription of glucocorticoids with a documented management plan (58.5% vs. 30.4%, p = 0.045). Meanwhile, CIP and CTP were similar. Telephone consultation was a significant risk factor for no changes in the treatment recommendation (odds ratio: 2.113, 95% confidence interval: 1.284-3.479, p = 0.003), and results were consistent in the 142 medical notes with documented absence of disease activity. Conclusions: In the clinical context of RA, the quality-of-care provided by telephone consultations is below the standard of care and impacts the treatment.