Literature DB >> 32390176

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on dermatology services: Dermatology in isolation.

Katerina Damevska1, Lence Neloska2, Viktor Simeonovski1, Andrej Petrov3,4, Irena Dimitrovska5, Natasa Teovska-Mitrevska6, Anita Najdova1, Nora Pollozhani1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32390176      PMCID: PMC7261979          DOI: 10.1111/dth.13552

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dermatol Ther        ISSN: 1396-0296            Impact factor:   2.851


× No keyword cloud information.
Dear Editor, The current pandemic of COVID‐19 demanded fast reorganization, as well as the necessity to adapt existing and administered extraordinary working protocols of dermatological services worldwide. We present a unique experience from Republic of Macedonia where an abrupt interruption of the dermatology service on a national level, and the COVID‐19 outbreak, occurred simultaneously, with a significant impact on the quality of care. The fourth diagnosed case of COVID‐19 in the Republic of Macedonia was a dermatologist employed at the University Clinic for Dermatology in Skopje, the only tertiary care hospital in the country. Prior to being diagnosed, the doctor made direct contact with nearly all medical and non‐medical personnel of the Clinic. The doctor also held a previously scheduled seminar, which was attended by an additional 95 dermatologists and dermatology residents from across the country. In the first hours following the diagnosis, rapid action was taken by government officials, and 128 dermatologists and dermatology residents were put in home quarantine for 14 days. Only 9 dermatologists in secondary care could resume practice in the period from 9 March 2020 to 26 March 2020, unevenly distributed geographically and in terms of subspecialty. At the same time, a number of socially restrictive measures were implemented, further reducing the availability of the dermatological services. The Macedonian dermatological body reacted with notable initiative and self‐organization. In the absence of an official teledermatology platform, commonly used social media platforms and conventional telecommunications were used to sustain communication with other specialties and patients. As a result, the management of the majority of chronic patients proceeded without interruption. In an effort to discover which of the dermatological conditions demanded immediate attention, we conducted a survey where we asked colleagues about the number and reasons for teledermatological consults. Overall, 77 dermatologists participated in the survey. Ninety‐one percent of respondents had received requests for consultations by patients. Eighty‐two percent felt that consultation via a communication application was useful for patient follow‐up; however, these methods were appropriate in less than 30% of cases for initial consultations. The most common motives for consultations with patients were therapy follow‐ups, acute exacerbations of chronic diseases, and deficiencies of certain medications due to difficulties in drug importations. Most frequently, dermatology input was requested from general practitioners (GPs) and pediatrics (Table 1).
TABLE 1

Most common dermatological input by specialty and by reason

Specialties which asked for dermatological consultCommon reasons for patient consultation

GPs (43)

Pediatrics (23)

Infectious disease (4)

OBGYN (4)

Hematology (2)

Rheumatology (2)

Plastic surgery (1)

Treatment modifications (pemphigus, AD, pemphigoid, psoriasis, acne)

Acute exacerbations of chronic diseases (AD, acne, psoriasis, pemphigus)

Patient education (AD, contact dermatitis)

Initial consultation (skin trauma, contact dermatitis, drug reactions)

Deficiencies of medications (retinoids, dapsone, antimalarials)

Most common dermatological input by specialty and by reason GPs (43) Pediatrics (23) Infectious disease (4) OBGYN (4) Hematology (2) Rheumatology (2) Plastic surgery (1) Treatment modifications (pemphigus, AD, pemphigoid, psoriasis, acne) Acute exacerbations of chronic diseases (AD, acne, psoriasis, pemphigus) Patient education (AD, contact dermatitis) Initial consultation (skin trauma, contact dermatitis, drug reactions) Deficiencies of medications (retinoids, dapsone, antimalarials) The dermatologists, who were not subject to the home isolation measure, held 163 outpatient examinations, in the majority of which pediatric dermatological pathology dominated (Table 2).
TABLE 2

Undelayable visits and admissions in 2 weeks period

Outpatient visits N = 163Primary reason for admission to hospital N = 11

Pediatric (<18 years)

 Atopic dermatitis (54)

 Diaper dermatitis (13)

 Acne (11)

 Skin infections (9)

 Drug rash (8)

 Other (12)

Adult patients

 Drug rash (16)

 Dermatoses in pregnancy (6)

 Acne (6)

 Esthetic procedures (6)

 Other (22)

Skin and soft tissue infections

Erysipelas

Diabetic foot

Chronic venous ulcers

Pemphigus

Bullous pemphigoid

Psoriasis

Stevens‐Johnson syndrome

Toxic epidermal necrolysis

Melanoma, surgical treatment

Pyoderma gangrenosum

Undelayable visits and admissions in 2 weeks period Pediatric (<18 years) Atopic dermatitis (54) Diaper dermatitis (13) Acne (11) Skin infections (9) Drug rash (8) Other (12) Adult patients Drug rash (16) Dermatoses in pregnancy (6) Acne (6) Esthetic procedures (6) Other (22) Skin and soft tissue infections Erysipelas Diabetic foot Chronic venous ulcers Pemphigus Bullous pemphigoid Psoriasis Stevens‐Johnson syndrome Toxic epidermal necrolysis Melanoma, surgical treatment Pyoderma gangrenosum A total of 11 patients were admitted during this period in a secondary care hospital; the most frequent admissions were for bullous dermatoses and cutaneous infections (Table 2). Korting, Hammerschmidt, and Miovski constituted the initial development of the University Clinic for Dermatology in 1947, as part of the Medical Faculty in Skopje, with the treatment of the vast number of patients with skin infections as its main purpose. , Since then, the dermatological services on the national level have continued to develop and have not once ceased work, not even during the events of the great 1963 Skopje earthquake. Dermatology is largely considered a nonacute, outpatient‐centered specialty, with a continued reduction in dedicated dermatology beds. , Our survey contributes by presenting the dermatoses, which demanded dermatological consult and which were a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge to the GPs and other specialties. These included pediatric dermatoses, dermatoses of pregnancy, patients with perennial retinoid therapy, bullous dermatoses, and cases of drug eruptions, including SJS and TEN. This is deducted from a 14‐day period and concerned a population of a little over 2 million. Pediatric dermatoses constitute roughly 50% of both urgent visits and telecommunication consultations. The present results are broadly in line with those of previous studies, confirming the role of the dermatologist in the pediatric care.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.
  6 in total

1.  [Experimental studies of endogenous factors in cutaneous fungoid infection].

Authors:  D MIOVSKI; G KORTING
Journal:  Srp Arh Celok Lek       Date:  1950-06       Impact factor: 0.207

2.  The need for dedicated dermatology beds.

Authors:  Ben Esdaile; Aoife Lally; Ravi Ratnavel
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.659

3.  Ulcerative tuberculoides.

Authors:  E E HAMMERSCHMIDT; G W KORTING
Journal:  Br J Dermatol Syph       Date:  1950-09

4.  Pediatric dermatology consultations: a retrospective analysis of inpatient consultations referred to the dermatology service.

Authors:  Yeray Peñate; Leopoldo Borrego; Noelia Hernández; Diana Islas
Journal:  Pediatr Dermatol       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 1.588

5.  Care of patients with psoriasis: an audit of U.K. services in secondary care.

Authors:  D J Eedy; C E M Griffiths; R J G Chalmers; A D Ormerod; C H Smith; J N W N Barker; J Potter; J Ingham; D Lowe; S Burge
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 9.302

6.  Inpatient care for dermatological patients during SARS-CoV-2 - a case report from Portugal.

Authors:  Miguel Alpalhão; Paulo Filipe
Journal:  Int J Dermatol       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 2.736

  6 in total
  4 in total

1.  Patch Testing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations of the AEDV's Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC).

Authors:  J M Carrascosa; M A Pastor-Nieto; I Ruiz-González; J F Silvestre; L Borrego; M E Gatica-Ortega; A M Giménez-Arnau
Journal:  Actas Dermosifiliogr       Date:  2020-09-18

2.  Patch Testing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations of the AEDV's Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC).

Authors:  J M Carrascosa; M A Pastor-Nieto; I Ruiz-González; J F Silvestre; L Borrego; M E Gatica-Ortega; A M Giménez-Arnau
Journal:  Actas Dermosifiliogr (Engl Ed)       Date:  2020-07-02

Review 3.  Teledermatology in the time of COVID-19.

Authors:  Ahmed Elsayed Ibrahim; Mayar Magdy; Eslam M Khalaf; Alshimaa Mostafa; Ahmed Arafa
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 3.149

4.  Influence of COVID-19 pandemic on hospitalizations at the tertiary dermatology department in south-west Poland.

Authors:  Rafał Białynicki-Birula; Iga Siemasz; Agnieszka Otlewska; Łukasz Matusiak; Jacek C Szepietowski
Journal:  Dermatol Ther       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 3.858

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.