Search

The high unmet neurosurgical burden in low- and middle-income countries has necessitated multiple global neurosurgical collaborations. We identified these collaborations and their peer-reviewed journal publications and evaluated them using a modified version of the Framework for Assessment of InteRNational Surgical Success (FAIRNeSS).A systematic literature review yielded 265 articles describing neurosurgery-focused collaborations. A subset of 101 papers from 17 collaborations were evaluated with the modified FAIRNeSS criteria. Analysis of trends was performed for both individual articles and collaborations.Most of the articles were general reviews (64), and most focused on clinical research (115). The leading collaboration focus was workforce and infrastructure development (45%). Composite FAIRNeSS scores ranged from 7/34 to 30/34. Average FAIRNeSS scores for individual articles ranged from 0.25 to 26.75, while collaboration-wide FAIRNeSS score averages ranged from 5.25 to 20.04. There was significant variability within each subset of FAIRNeSS indicators (P value0.001). Short-term goals had higher scores than medium- and long-term goals (P value0.001). Collaboration composite scores correlated with the number of papers published (RGlobal neurosurgery has no established metrics for evaluating collaborations; therefore, we adapted the FAIRNeSS criteria to do so. The criteria may not be well suited for measuring the success and sustainability of global neurosurgery collaborations, creating a need to develop a more applicable alternate set of metrics.

BACKGROUND COVID-19 radically changed neuro-oncology care. In this retrospective study, we examine the impact of COVID-19 infection on neuro-oncological care and clinical outcomes in two geographically separate populations. METHODS Descriptive statistics compared demographic and clinical history extracted from the medical records of COVID-19 positive patients with primary brain tumors treated between 3/1/2020 and 3/31/2021. All subjects were unvaccinated given our cohort pre-dates the ubiquitous availability of vaccines. Patients were treated at Washington University (WashU) in St. Louis, MO and Duke University in Durham, NC. Each site’s respective institutional review board approved the study, with a data transfer agreement in place. RESULTS We identified 62 total (WashU=13; Duke=49) subjects with positive COVID-19 infection. Patients were predominantly white (85.5%), male (56.5%), with KPS >=70 (82.3%) and never smoked (69.4%). WashU patients tended to be older with grade 4 tumors, but this was not significant. At the time of COVID infection 35.5% of patients were receiving cancer-directed therapy. Notably, 37.1% experienced delayed care due to a COVID-19 diagnosis, most often for scheduled systemic treatment or radiation treatment. A further 37.1% had an ER visit, hospitalization, or ICU stay attributed to COVID-19. Of the 17 patients who died during the study period, 4 deaths were attributed directly to COVID-19 and not to their underlying brain tumor or other cause. Finally, telehealth use differed between sites (84.6% at WashU vs 14.3% at Duke). However, this difference could not be attributed to patient age, performance status, or distance from treating institution. CONCLUSION COVID-19 infection led to treatment delays and death for a subset, but not the majority of neuro-oncology patients. Telehealth use varied between sites and was not associated with commonly held assumptions about patient distance or performance status, suggesting evolving practice norms following telehealth’s introduction. Study limitations include a small sample size

INTRODUCTION The use of telemedicine increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the impact on patient satisfaction in the Neuro-oncology population is unknown. This quality improvement project compares outpatient satisfaction before and during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as in-person versus telemedicine platforms during the pandemic. METHODS We performed an IRB-exempt retrospective analysis of aggregate de-identified outpatient satisfaction scores among Neuro-oncology patients seen at The Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center (PRTBTC) at Duke University. The Clinician & Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) is a survey developed and distributed by Press Ganey Associates, and is the most widely used outpatient satisfaction survey in the United States. We compared pre-COVID-19 CG-CAHPS scores from patients who received in-person care at the PRBTC between April 2019 and March 2020 to COVID-19 pandemic CG-CAHPS scores (i.e. those who received either telemedicine or in-person care at the PRTBTC) from April 2020 to March 2021. RESULTS Approximately 1448 surveys were completed for both in-person and telemedicine visits. During the pandemic, 48.6% of surveys represented telemedicine, with monthly variations from 84.6% (April 2020) to 21.4% (March 2021). Patient satisfaction scores pre-COVID-19 were similar to those during the pandemic: overall provider rating from 0-10 (9.28 v 9.36), knowledge of medical history (96.9% v 95.4%), listens carefully (96.6% v 96.9%), shows respect (97.2% v 98.1%), and time spent (93.2% v 95.5%). During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person and telemedicine demonstrate similar levels of satisfaction: overall provider rating from 0-10 (9.29 v 9.48), knowledge of medical history (94.9% v 96.1%), listens carefully (95.4% v 99.0%), shows respect (97.5% v 99.0%), and time spent (94.7% v 96.7%). CONCLUSION Outpatient satisfaction prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic was similar. Patients reported similar satisfaction between in-person and telemedicine platforms. We support the ongoing use of telemedicine for outpatient Neuro-oncology.