Short abstract
Linked articles: COVID‐19 SPECIAL FORUM. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020; 34: e433–e466.
As a result of the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and government lockdown measures, healthcare systems were challenged worldwide. Medical doctors were faced with prioritization of non‐COVID19 medical problems in order to reduce potential exposures and to mobilize staff and resources for COVID‐19 care. On the other hand, decreases in some non‐COVID19 health problems have been observed, e.g. myocardial infarction, newly diagnosed cancers among which esp. skin cancer, … and there is concern that delay in these may negatively affect patient outcome. 1 , 2 , 3 In this respect, it is important to define and communicate recommendations on prioritization of non‐COVID19 related health care.
In this position paper, we describe recommendations developed by the Belgian Association of Dermato‐Oncology (BADO) for prioritization of patients in the field of dermato‐oncology during COVID19 pandemic without compromising quality of care and safety. BADO was founded in 2012, and the board consists of a mix of derrmatologists, oncologists and surgeons. Its main goals are to promote multidisciplinary approach of dermato‐oncology, to exchange scientific knowledge about dermato‐oncology and to work on treatment recommendations for different skin cancer types.
These (COVID‐19) recommendations are based on estimated potentially harmful effects by delaying a specific consultation type as also discussed in the letter of Tejera‐Vaquerizo. 1 We categorized dermato‐oncology care into urgent (no delay), semi‐urgent (delay for max 8–12 weeks) and low priority (more than 12 weeks delay acceptable) (Tables 1, 2, 3). In addition, measures for limiting viral transmission during consultation and surgery are described (Tables 4, 5, 6).
Table 1.
Urgent care: no postponement
|
Systemic treatment options with reduced frequency of hospital visits need to be considered.
Table 2.
Semi‐urgent care: these indications can be postponed, but need to be replanned within 8–12 weeks
|
Table 3.
Low priority indications can be postponed beyond 12 weeks
|
Table 4.
Practical planning of the consultation
|
Table 5.
General precautions during the consultation
|
Table 6.
Precautions during surgery
1. Outpatient intervention outside face mask area |
Patient wears face mask |
Doctor wears face mask and gloves and normal surgical clothing |
When in the face outside the face mask area sterile field protects as much as possible mask area; normal protective clothing (mask, gloves, surgical clothing) |
2. Outpatient intervention in mask area of the face |
COVID testing (SWAB screening day before) negative |
If testing is not available, treat the patients as potentially positive and increase doctor's protection: (FFP2) mask and extra protection (e.g. shield and extra surgical apron over surgical clothing) |
3. Inpatient surgery |
Consider COVID testing in all patients prior to hospitalization |
In conclusion, the COVID‐19 outbreak posed significant challenges to medical staff to offer optimal and timely care in non‐COVID19 health problems at the same time keeping the risk of COVID19 spread as low as possible. In the last months, proposals for triage in several health conditions have been published especially in oncology including skin cancer. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 BADO developed recommendations to prioritize dermato‐oncological care on a national level in Belgium. In the circumstances of the COVID19 pandemic, the approval and refunding of tele/videoconsultations by the government was accelerated but for skin cancer treatment and follow‐up teleconsultations are often suboptimal. 10 , 11
These recommendations were needed to take on a nationwide similar approach for the different indications in dermato‐oncology; it was also a way to monitor replanning of postponed consultations since acceptable delay period was defined for different indications in dermato‐oncology. Because of the fast changing situation, the introduction of the guidelines mentions that ‘these recommendations could serve as a guidance and are based on a general weighing of pros/cons. They need to be tuned according to the evolving situation and advices for COVID19 by the government and the weighing of the pros/cons for the individual patient’.
For the moment, the lockdown measures in Belgium have been gradually decreased and care has returned to (nearly) normal levels taking into account basic preventive measures described above to avoid spread of infection. Nevertheless, these guidelines may be valuable in case of flare up of COVID‐19 or in other circumstances that require prioritization of dermato‐oncology care.
Conflicts of interest
None declared.
Funding sources
None declared.
References
- 1. Solomon MD, McNulty EJ, Rana JS et al. The Covid‐19 pandemic and the incidence of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2020. 10.1056/NEJMc2015630 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Dinmohamed AG, Visser O, Verhoeven RHA et al. Fewer cancer diagnoses during the COVID‐19 epidemic in the Netherlands. Lancet Oncol 2020; 21: 750–751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Tejera‐Vaquerizo A, Nagore E. Estimated effect of COVID‐19 lockdown on melanoma thickness and prognosis: a rate of growth model. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020. 10.1111/jdv.16555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Tagliaferri L, Di Stefani A, Schinzari G et al. Skin cancer triage and management during COVID‐19 pandemic. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020; 34: 1136–1139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Borchert A, Baumgarten L, Dalela D et al. Managing urology consultations during COVID‐19 pandemic: application of a structured care pathway. Urology 2020; 4295: 7–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Pothuri B, Alvarez Secord A, Armstrong DK et al. Anti‐cancer therapy and clinical trial considerations for gynecologic oncology patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic crisis. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 158: 16–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. de Azambuja E, Trapani D, Loibl S et al. ESMO management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID‐19 era: breast cancer. ESMO Open 2020; 5(Suppl 3): e000793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Di Ciaccio P, McCaughan G, Trotman J et al. Australian and New Zealand consensus statement on the management of lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and myeloma during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Intern Med J 2020; 50: 667–679. 10.1111/imj.14859 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. López V, Vázquez T, Alonso‐Titos J et al. Recommendations on management of the SARS‐CoV‐2 coronavirus pandemic (Covid‐19) in kidney transplant patients. Nefrologia 2020; 40: 265–271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Valentino LA, Skinner MW Pipe S. The role of telemedicine in the delivery of healthcare in the COVID‐19 Pandemic. Haemophilia 2020. 10.1111/hae.14044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Sharma A, Jindal V, Singla P, Goldust M, Mhatre M. Will Teledermatology be the silver lining during and after COVID‐19? Dermatol Ther 2020; 22: e13643. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Jakhar D, Kaur I, Kaul S. Art of performing dermoscopy during the times of coronavirus disease (COVID‐19): simple change in approach can save the day! J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020; 34: e242–e244. 10.1111/jdv.16412 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]