Family meetings are fundamental to the practice of palliative medicine and serve as a cornerstone of intervention on the inpatient palliative care consultation service. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the structure and process of in-patient family meetings, owing to necessary but restrictive visitor policies that did not allow families to be present in the hospital. We describe implementation of telemedicine to facilitate electronic family (e-family) meetings to facilitate in-patient palliative care. Of 67 scheduled meetings performed by the palliative care service, only two meetings were aborted for a 97% success rate of scheduled meetings occurring. On a five-point Likert-type scale, the average clinician rating of the e-family meeting overall quality was 3.18 (SD, .96). Of the 10 unique family participants who agreed to be interviewed, their overall ratings of the e-family meetings were high. Over 80% of respondent families participants reported that they agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to ask all of their questions, felt comfortable expressing their thoughts and feelings with the clinical team, felt like they understood the care their loved one received, and that the virtual family meeting helped them trust the clinical team. Of patients who were able to communicate, 50% of family respondents reported that the e-family meeting helped them understand their loved one's thoughts and wishes.

Background: The expansion of telemedicine associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced outpatient medical care. The objective of our study was to determine the impact of telemedicine on post-acute stroke clinic follow-up. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the impact of telemedicine in Emory Healthcare, an academic healthcare system of comprehensive and primary stroke centers in Atlanta, Georgia, on post-hospital stroke clinic follow-up. We compared the frequency of 90-day follow-up in a centralized subspecialty stroke clinic among patients hospitalized before the local COVID-19 pandemic (January 1, 2019- February 28, 2020), during (March 1- April 30, 2020) and after telemedicine implementation (May 1- December 31, 2020). A comparison was made across hospitals less than 1 mile, 10 miles, and 25 miles from the stroke clinic. Results: Of 1096 ischemic stroke patients discharged home or to a rehab facility during the study period, 342 (31%) had follow-up in the Emory Stroke Clinic (comprehensive stroke center 46%, primary stroke center 10 miles away 18%, primary stroke center 25 miles away 14%). Overall, 90-day follow-up increased from 19% to 41% after telemedicine implementation (p<0.001) with telemedicine appointments amounting for up to 28% of all follow-up visits. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with teleneurology follow-up (vs no follow-up) included discharge from the comprehensive stroke center, thrombectomy treatment, private insurance, private transport to the hospital, NIHSS 0-5 and history of dyslipidemia. Conclusions: Despite telemedicine implementation at an academic healthcare network successfully increasing post-stroke discharge follow-up in a centralized subspecialty stroke clinic, the majority of patients did not complete 90-day follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective Telemedicine has rapidly gained momentum in movement disorder neurology during the coronavirus disease (CO-VID-19) pandemic to preserve clinical care while mitigating the risks of in-person visits. We present data from the rapid imple-mentation of virtual visits in a large, academic, movement disorder practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsaaWe describe the strategic shift to virtual visits and retrospectively examine elements that impacted the ability to switch to telemedicine visits using historical prepandemic in-person data as a comparator, including demographics, distance driven, and diagnosis distribution, with an additional focus on patients with deep brain stimulators. ResultsaaA total of 686 telemedicine visits were performed over a five-week period (60% of those previously scheduled for in-office visits). The average age of participants was 65 years, 45% were female, and 73% were Caucasian. Men were more likely to make the transition (p = 0.02). Telemedicine patients lived farther from the clinic than those seen in person (66.47 km vs. 42.16 km, p < 0.001), age was not associated with making the switch, and patient satisfaction did not change. There was a significant shift in the distribution of movement disorder diagnoses seen by telemedicine compared to prepandemic in-person visits (p < 0.001). Patients with deep brain stimulators were more likely to use telemedicine (11.5% vs. 7%, p < 0.001). ConclusionaaTelemedicine is feasible, viable and relevant in the care of movement disorder patients, although health care dis-parities appear evident for women and minorities. Patients with deep brain stimulators preferred telemedicine in our study. Further study is warranted to explore these findings.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has forced healthcare systems to develop strategies to allocate critical care resources when demand outstrips supply (1). The pandemic has also disproportionately impacted Black patients (2, 3), for whom baseline health disparities are well documented and largely driven by inequity in social determinants of health. Concerns about the potential for inequity in resource allocation were raised early in the pandemic, especially if morbidity limiting near-term survival was factored into allocation decisions. Two mitigation strategies to avoid inequity in allocation have been proposed: eliminating consideration of expected survival beyond 1 year and incorporating measures of social disadvantage such as the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) (2, 4, 5).

Perineural spread (PNS) to cranial nerves (CNs) by cutaneous malignancies is difficult to diagnose given the indolent course and often late or absent findings on brain imaging. A 68-year-old white man with multiple cranial neuropathies secondary to PNS by squamous cell carcinoma had negative high-quality neuroimaging for 5.25 years. He first developed left facial numbness, followed 39 months later by a left CN VI palsy. Subsequent examinations over 2 years showed involvement of left seventh, right trigeminal V1-V3, and right sixth, and bilateral third nerve palsies. Repeat high-quality brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs) during this time showed no identifiable CNs abnormality. Full body positron emission tomography imaging and cerebrospinal fluid studies were normal. 5.25 years after initial sensory symptom onset, MRI showed new enhancement along the right mandibular branch of the trigeminal nerve with foramen ovale widening. Autopsy showed squamous cell carcinoma within both CNs sixth. A long interval to diagnosis of PNS is associated with high morbidity, emphasizing the need for earlier methods of detection when clinical suspicion is high.

Background Studies have shown worse outcomes in patients with comorbid ischemic stroke (IS) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but have had small sample sizes. Methods We retrospectively identified patients in the Vizient Clinical Data Base® with IS as a discharge diagnosis. The study outcomes were in-hospital death and favorable discharge (home or acute rehabilitation). In the primary analysis, we compared IS patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (IS-COVID) discharged April 1-July 31, 2020 to pre-COVID IS patients discharged in 2019 (IS controls). In a secondary analysis, we compared a matched cohort of IS-COVID patients to patients within the IS controls who had pneumonia (IS-PNA), created with inverse-probability-weighting (IPW). Results In the primary analysis, we included 166,586 IS controls and 2086 IS-COVID from 312 hospitals in 46 states. Compared to IS controls, IS-COVID were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or be smokers, but more likely to be male, younger, have diabetes, obesity, acute renal failure, acute coronary syndrome, venous thromboembolism, intubation, and comorbid intracerebral or subarachnoid hemorrhage (all p<0.05). Black and Hispanic patients accounted for 21.7% and 7.4% of IS controls, respectively, but 33.7% and 18.5% of IS-COVID (p<0.001). IS-COVID, versus IS controls, were less likely to receive alteplase (1.8% vs 5.6%, p<0.001), mechanical thrombectomy (4.4% vs. 6.7%, p<0.001), to have favorable discharge (33.9% vs. 66.4%, p<0.001), but more likely to die (30.4% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). In the matched cohort of patients with IS-COVID and IS-PNA, IS-COVID had a higher risk of death (IPW-weighted OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.33-1.82) and lower odds of favorable discharge (IPW-weighted OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.54-0.73).