Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Sep 30;16(9):e0257458. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257458

Implementation of vascular surgery teleconsultation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from the outpatient vascular clinics in a tertiary care hospital in Qatar

Hassan Al-Thani 1, Ahammed Mekkodathil 2, Ahmed Hussain 1, Ahmed Sharaf 1, Ahmed Sadek 1, Anas Aldakhl-Allah 1, Ahmed Awad 1, Nassar Al-Abdullah 1, Ahmad Zitoun 1, Jini Paul 1, Pushpalatha Pillai 1, Sara John 1, Ayman El-Menyar 2,3,*
Editor: Robert Jeenchen Chen4
PMCID: PMC8483384  PMID: 34591886

Abstract

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a surge in the use of virtual communication tools for delivering clinical services for many non-urgent medical needs allowing telehealth or telemedicine, to become an almost inevitable part of the patient care. However, most of patients with vascular disease may require face-to-face interaction and are at risk of worse outcomes if not managed in timely manner.

Objective

We aimed to describe the utilization of telemedicine services in the outpatient vascular surgery clinics in a tertiary hospital.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data on all vascular outpatient encounters during 2019 and 2020 was conducted and compared to reflect the pattern of practice prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

The study showed that 61% of the total patient encounters in 2020 were reported through teleconsultation. Females were the majority of patients who sought the virtual vascular care. Consultations for the new cases decreased from 29% to 26% whereas, the follow-up cases increased from 71% to 74% in 2020 (p = 0.001). The number of procedures performed in the vascular outpatient clinics decreased by 46% in 2020 when compared to 2019. This decrease in procedures was more evident in the duration from February 2020 to April 2020 in which the procedures decreased by 97%. The proportion of procedures represented 22.6% of the total encounters in 2019 and 10.5% of the encounters during 2020, (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Teleconsultation, along with supporting practice guidelines, can be used to maximize the efficiency of care in vascular surgery patients during the pandemic and beyond. Adoption of the ‘hybrid care’ which combines both virtual and in-person services as an ongoing practice requires evidence obtained through audits and studies on patients and healthcare providers levels. It is essential to establish a clear practice that ensures patient’s needs.

Introduction

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was declared as a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020 [1, 2]. The pandemic had an impact across all aspects of healthcare systems around the world with delays and disruption of services that are still being contended with today. However, the pandemic also sparked a surge in the interest and use of virtual means of delivering clinical services. The delivery of clinical services through phone calls, videos or video-calls and/or text has become a new normal for non-urgent medical needs [3]. Telehealth, telemedicine or teleconsultation is referred as the use of telecommunication technologies for the distribution of health-related services such as long-distance clinical health care, patient and professional health-related education, public health, and health administration. While it has been in existence since the late 1950s and early 1960s, it has undergone a transformation and has been re-centered as a common practice due to the pandemic [4, 5]. Previous studies on telemedicine in vascular surgery have shown that commercially available hardware and software solutions provide secure virtual patient visits and have proven to be effective in the management of patients with chronic vascular diseases [6, 7]. Patients with vascular health issues like acute ischemia, stroke, bleeding, venous ulcers, and deep vein thrombosis who need vascular access procedures become at risk of worse outcomes if they are not managed in timely and appropriate manner. Synchronous telemedicine with point-of-care ultrasound was found to be effective in the evaluation of common vascular conditions [6]. In addition, telemedicine can be used to reach a larger population, reduce financial burden on patients especially by reducing patient travel time and cost, reduce environmental pollutant emissions and reduce the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) [68]. While the switch to telemedicine has accelerated due to the pandemic, it is important to be mindful of the social and legal parameters within the practice context.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) in Qatar, in which Hamad General Hospital (HGH) is the only tertiary facility for vascular surgery service in the country, has provided around 90 percent of the regular services, including urgent consultations, via telemedicine (teleconsultation) [9]. This physician-led service allows patients to have a virtual consultation with their healthcare providers, receive medical advice, sick leave and get their medicine delivered to their doorstep. Audits and patient satisfaction on the use telemedicine remain crucial since many of the patients with vascular diseases necessitated face-to-face interactions. However, as discussed above, evidence suggests that the use of telemedicine is appropriate especially in pandemic situations, such as COVID-19. The aim of this study is to explore the pattern of utilization of telemedicine services in the vascular surgery outpatient clinic before and during the COVID-19 era in a tertiary hospital in Qatar. The study findings may be relevant to improve the other patient care settings globally during an emergency pandemic.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data on all patient encounters from the 1st of January 2019 to 31st of December 2020 at the vascular surgery clinic of HGH was conducted. The study design was approved by the Medical Research Center (IRB# MRC-01-21-430), HMC, Doha, Qatar. The need for consent was waived as this was a retrospective analysis, and the data were anonymously collected.

Data were presented by gender, nationality (national vs. non-national), new cases, follow-up cases, procedures, physical consultation and teleconsultation (such as electronic, digital, Internet-based, or telephone-based communication for direct patient care). These variables were compared from 2019 and 2020 to reflect the data prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the country. Procedures performed in the clinic mainly include sclerotherapy, duplex ultrasound scan and diabetic foot dressing. Vascular surgery services at HGH are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Key vascular services at Hamad General Hospital.

  • Vascular access for dialysis:
    • Catheter access.
    • Arteriovenous fistula.
  • Dialysis peritoneal access.

  • Vascular access for chemotherapy:
    • Catheter access.
    • Implanted access.
  • Vascular access for nutritional therapies:
    • Short-term access.
    • Long-term access.
    • Vascular access for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO).
  • Vascular surgery of neurovascular pathologies:
    • Carotid endarterectomy (e.g. CVA).
    • Implanted devices for epilepsy.
  • Vascular surgery for atherosclerosis:
    • Occlusive diseases; peripheral arterial disease, chronic mesenteric ischemia.
    • Aneurysmal diseases; abdominal aortic aneurysm, thoracic aortic aneurysm or others.
  • Vascular endovascular interventions.
    • For both occlusive disease and aneurysms.
  • Major vascular injury procedures.

  • Diabetic foot management.

  • Venous surgery i.e. procedures related to varicose veins.

  • Lymphatic disease management.

  • Oncology- Vascular surgery in MDT to support other surgical specialties for cancer cases.

  • Multi-disciplinary outpatient vascular clinic for hemodialysis vascular access care with imaging services “One stop vascular shopping” to improve the quality of care and reduce waiting time for patients.

  • Network vascular healthcare with all the HMC Hospitals to coordinate patients’ care.

  • Training for healthcare professionals (resident, nurses).

  • Provide teaching activities and CME for healthcare professionals in vascular surgery and medicine.

  • Vascular research.

  • Vascular quality assurance.

Although a telemedicine/teleconsultation service at the vascular clinic at HGH was established prior to the start of 2020, its use significantly increased from March 2020. Virtual consultations were mainly offered over telephone to limit face-to-face interactions for non-urgent cases and for patient follow-up. This service could be accessed by dialing the toll-free number 16000, between 7am and 10pm any day of the week, to schedule an appointment [9]. Fig 1 provides a comparison of the virtual and in person encounters at the vascular surgery clinic in 2019 and 2020.

Fig 1. Telephone/Virtual consultation in vascular surgery clinic at Hamad General Hospital.

Fig 1

Fig 2 provides a flow-chart of triage and referrals at the vascular clinics. The COVID-19 data were obtained from Qatar Open Data portal by the Government of Qatar [10]. All teleconsultations were delivered to patients at no cost and medications were dispensed to the patient address via collaboration between the hospital pharmacy and post-office express service. All the information in the outpatient clinics was based on telephonic conversation.

Fig 2. Triage of referrals at the vascular surgery clinic at Hamad General Hospital.

Fig 2

Data were presented as numbers and percentages. Chi-square test was performed to examine the significance of differences in proportion between categorical variables under study (2019 vs 2020 era). A 2-tailed p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. In this study, a comparative analysis of patient encounters, patient characteristics and procedures performed were compared before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The percentage change over the time was calculated to quantify the change from one number to another and express the change as an increase or decrease. Data analysis was carried out using SPSS version 18 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).

Results

During the study period of 2 years (2019–2020), a total of 23,894 patient encounters (n = 11,105 in 2019 and n = 12,789 in 2020) were recorded. In the year 2019, all consultations were physical while nearly 61% of the total encounters were through telemedicine services in 2020 (Table 2). Fig 3 summarizes the vascular patients’ workload in the outpatient vascular surgery clinic during the pandemic. Most cases had varicose vein disease followed by peripheral artery disease.

Table 2. Patients consultations, characteristics, and procedures at the vascular surgery outpatient clinic at Hamad General Hospital before and during the COVID-19 era (N = 23,984).

2019 2020 P-value
Total consultations 11,105 (46.5%) 12,789 (53.5%) 0.001 for all
 Physical consultations 11,105 (100%) 4965 (38.8%) *
 Telemedicine services 0 7737 (60.5%)
Gender 0.07 for all
 Male 4249 (38.3%) 4871 (38.1%)
 Female 6856(61.7%) 7918 (61.9%)
Nationality 0.001 for all
 Nationals 3608 (32.5%) 3895 (30.5%)
 Non-nationals 7497 (67.5%) 8894 (69.5%)
Type of service 0.001 for all
 New cases 3171 (28.6%) 3268 (25.6%) *
 Follow-up 7934 (71.4%) 9511 (74.4%)
Procedures done: 2506 (22.6%) 1346 (10.5%) 0.001 for all
 Sclerotherapy (liquid & foam) 1414 (56.4%) 460 (34.2%)
 Duplex ultrasound scan 455 (18.2%) 513 (38.1%)
 Diabetic foot dressing 320 (12.8%) 195 (14.5%)
 PermCath removal 98 (3.9%) 28 (2.1%)
 Cutaneous laser treatment 87(3.5%) 17 (1.3%)
 Venous ulcer Unna boot 74 (3.0%) 62 (4.6%)
 Surgical dressing 28 (1.1%) 38 (2.8%)
 Suture removal 14 (0.6%) 29 (2.2%)
 Others** 16 (0.5%) 4 (0.2%)

*Valid percentages are used.

** Others include clip removal, suturing and Hickman removal.

Fig 3. Vascular patients’ workload during the pandemic in the outpatient vascular surgery clinic during the pandemic.

Fig 3

Fig 4 demonstrates the dramatic drop in number of physical visits of patients (dropped by 95%) in the duration from February 2020 to April 2020. The same period showed that the telephone consultations increased more than 25 times.

Fig 4. Patient encounters and procedures done at vascular surgery outpatient clinic at Hamad General Hospital during the COVID-19 period.

Fig 4

Females were the majority of patients (62%) across the study. There were no significant differences in males and females accessed care in 2019 and 2020 (p = 0.07) (Table 2). However, there were significant differences in the proportion of Qatari nationals and non-nationals accessing the care each year. Qatari patient encounters decreased by 2% in 2020 and the proportion of non-Qatari patient encounters increased accordingly (2%) (p = 0.001). Of note, the Qatari population (citizens) represents only 15% of the total Qatar population. Further analysis revealed that the non-national males (74%) and non-national females (65%) were the majority among male and female groups. There was 4% percentage decrease among the Qatari females who accessed care in 2020 (p = 0.001) (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Access of vascular surgery clinic at Hamad General Hospital by gender and nationality during the COVID-19.

Fig 5

Of the total, 27% were new cases whereas 73% were follow-up cases. There was significant drop in the new cases and increase in the follow-up cases in 2020. New cases decreased from 29% to 26% whereas follow-up cases increased from 71% to 74% in 2020 (p = 0.001).

The number of procedures performed in the vascular clinics decreased by 46% in 2020 when compared to 2019. This decrease was prominent in the duration from February 2020 to April 2020 in which the procedures decreased by 97%. The proportion of procedures in the vascular clinic represented 22.6% of the total encounters in 2019 and 10.5% of the encounters during 2020 (p = 0.001) (Table 2). The main procedures performed in the study duration were duplex ultrasound scan (38.1%), sclerotherapy (34.2%), and diabetic foot dressing (14.5%). Other procedures included foam sclerotherapy, cutaneous laser treatment, clip removal, permcath removal, surgical dressing, vascular ulcer Unna boot, suturing and Hickman removal. Notably, sclerotherapy (liquid or foam) decreased from 56% of the total procedures to 34% whereas duplex ultrasound scan and diabetic foot dressing increased significantly in 2020. Sclerotherapy procedure was stopped during the COVID pandemic as illustrated in Fig 4. (459 cases in the first three months and only one case in September for bleeding varicose vein).

Discussion

The present study from the vascular surgery outpatient clinic in the only tertiary care facility within Qatar demonstrated the increased use of telemedicine especially during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic. Our study demonstrated that 61% of the outpatient encounters at the vascular clinic was through teleconsultation in the year 2020 (COVID-19 era). Females were the majority of patients who accessed the virtual care in this period, and many of cases were follow-ups. Consultations for new vascular cases reduced significantly. The duration from February 2020 to April 2020 witnessed 95% drop in the physical visits of patients and more than 25 times increase in the telemedicine encounters. Similarly, there was 97% decrease in procedures performed in the vascular clinics during the COVID-19 period. During the peak of the pandemic, there was a shift in the multi-disciplinary outpatient vascular clinic for hemodialysis vascular access to inpatient consultation or direct consultation in the hemodialysis centers. This resulted in a significant drop in the number of physical visits to the vascular clinic for the hemodialysis patients.

On the other hand, patients for vascular access for chemotherapy rarely come to the vascular clinic even before the pandemic. The vascular coordinators for chemotherapy access at the national oncology center (NCCR) arrange referral for new chemotherapy access or ongoing issues with patients who need chemotherapy and then patients will be seen at the NCCR physically by the vascular team.

All the emergency vascular consultations are seen by the vascular surgeon on-call physically whether inpatient or in the emergency department. The pandemic did not impact on the overall number of consultations. On the other hand, the surgical procedures decreased from 2506 in 2019 to 1849 in 2020 due to the discontinuation of elective varicose vein surgery. Oncology-Vascular surgery Multidisciplinary Video Conferencing Meetings Calling using Microsoft Teams to support other surgical specialties for cancer cases take place twice weekly; one the uro-oncology Multidisciplinary and the other one in the sarcoma Multidisciplinary team.

The Primary Health Care Corporation (PHCC) and HMC had to be prepared to continue to address the needs of the 2.7 million people that make up Qatar’s population along with managing the ongoing pandemic. The PHCC operates 27 primary health care centers across the country. HMC is the premier not-for-profit healthcare provider and has 9 hospitals under its umbrella including the only tertiary care hospital, HGH, which includes the vascular surgery clinics.

The healthcare system in Qatar has managed remarkable development in its relatively short history. The HMC began implementation of electronic medical records in 2011 using Cerner Millennium and by the end of 2017, all HMC hospitals; PHCC and Sidra Medicine implemented one Clinical Information System (CIS). In 2015, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a multinational audit, assurance and consultation firm, was invited to support the development of the Qatar National E-Health and Data Program (QNeDP) with the vision of creating a world-class, sustainable, integrated and secure National E-Health ecosystem. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) recently announced that two HMC facilities, the Heart Hospital and the NCCCR, achieved the HIMSS Analytics Electronic Medical Record Adoption ModelSM (EMRAM) Stage 6 Distinction, an international benchmark for the use of advanced IT to improve patient care. In 2018, the patient portal, “MyHealth”, service enabled individuals to register themselves and their children to access their health records online anytime, anywhere, including laboratory test results, medication details and medical appointments. This was crucial to the healthcare’s system to continue providing services during the pandemic.

The first positive COVID-19 case in Qatar was confirmed on 29th February 2020, and the infection rate in the country has peaked in June 2020 (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Number of COVID-19 positive cases by month in Qatar in 2020.

Fig 6

The significant decrease in the physical consultations, corresponding increase in the teleconsultations and drop in procedures performed in the clinic reflect the public health measures adopted by the country to prevent spread of COVID-19, such as minimizing direct contact with patients for non-urgent care. Although there is a lack of studies on patient satisfaction, experts in this subject area reported that telemedicine is gaining popularity among vascular patients, especially among the follow-up patients. Therefore, new normal patient encounters utilizing telemedicine services may emerge in the post-COVID era, perhaps with a hybridization of virtual and in-person experiences across the full-continuum of care.

A study from the vascular surgery department in Seattle, USA demonstrated a significant change in all the normal vascular surgery practice during the COVID-19 period after adopting new practice guidelines [11]. The average weekly clinical volume and surgical volume decreased by 96.5% and 71.7%, respectively. Sixty percent of the inpatient consultations were attained as teleconsultation in which the patient was never evaluated in-person. The trainee surgical volume has also decreased by 86.4% for the vascular surgery fellow. In contrast, a multisite health care system study from Mayo clinic in USA reported that 12.6% of the total vascular surgery encounters were completed via telemedicine between March 2020 and August 2020 [12]. Approximately 81% of these patients rated their overall healthcare experiences ‘very good’ and this rating was comparable to face-to-face encounters (79%) [12].

A cross-sectional survey by the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) among vascular surgeons in the US found that 91% of the surgeons in the survey reported the cancellation of all elective surgeries and 89% reported disruption to their outpatient clinics or ambulatory center schedules [13]. Few surgeons (8%) indicated that they performed elective cases focusing on dialysis access (59%), followed by aortic repair (51%), and lower extremity revascularization (49%) [13]. In our report, there was 97% decrease in procedures performed in the vascular clinics, and diabetic foot dressing was the main procedure (38%) during the COVID era. The SVS survey also revealed that 81% of the surgeons used telehealth services [13].

However, other studies showed that patients were more favorable towards utilization of telemedicine services, especially due to the COVID scenario. In a Chinese study, 95% of vascular patients favored telemedicine instead of postponing their appointments and all the patients expressed their satisfaction with the video calls and preferred to use telemedicine for follow-up in the future [14]. This helps vascular patients to avoid the probability of transmission and infection of COVID associated with travel, hospital visit and physical consultation [14]. It also helps to save personal protective equipment in hospitals and protect healthcare workers while minimizing the chances of spreading the virus [15]. Adopting such teleconsultation will improve the preparedness of different subspecialties for possible subsequent new waves of the pandemic.

Teleconsultation still has many challenges including reimbursement, accessibility, monitoring of quality, patient confidentiality, local and national legal oversight and liability, Internet speed, patients’ educational and know-how computer literacy level [12, 16]. Although there are multiple reports on the utilization of telemedicine services in different specialties worldwide, there is a paucity of studies from the Middle East [17] and the unique social and legal parameters which could affect clinical best practice. It is important to note that the ability to continue the development of hybridized services is contingent on an understanding of social and legal operational contexts. The acceptance of virtual consultations may be preferable to cancelation during a pandemic, however, that cannot be taken as a preference. Within the given cultural context, there may be many patients who are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the use of virtual means that could include video or photography. The sharing of videos or photos, especially those of a personal or sensitive nature, is not a common practice. Within the in-person clinical setting there is an ability to build the trust and rapport that is required for accurate diagnosis and to overcome apprehensions. The relationship with the patient may not be as easily established virtually and may account for the difference in the number of new cases from 2019 to 2020.

Apprehension around telemedicine may also exist because the practice often outpaces the legal parameters in place and organizations need to be responsive in establishing their own policies and procedures that protect both the patients and the providers. Qatar introduced its first data protection law under Law 13 of 2016. This law was revisited in November 2020, 8 months after the confirmation of the first COVID-19 case in Qatar, to add 14 regulatory guidelines which were not previously covered including information around Special Nature Personal Data such as health data relating to COVID-19 [18]. However, new regulatory guidelines continue to put the onus on organizations to translate the regulations into application. For the telemedicine setting, the questions around data security and privacy are numerous and of varying degrees of gravity. Should all the calls be conducted on hospital-provided accounts and devices? How are the data stored and which channels are appropriate to utilize for sharing information? These questions represent only some of the issues that need to be taken into consideration when establishing a productive ecosystem for telemedicine. Furthermore, the development of audits, patient satisfaction surveys and studies on provider experience would provide crucial insight that would help to identifying patient needs and address any technical, social or educational barriers to effective hybridized care models.

Patient selection in telemedicine services, especially in vascular surgery remains crucial [15]. Postoperative patients having an unremarkable and uncomplicated convalescence, chronic vascular patients requiring surveillance with or without vascular imaging, established patients with new complaint before triaged towards to hospital and new referral patients to determine whether to be seen immediately, are well suited for teleconsultations [15]. The need to perform physical examinations of the vascular tree, wound probing, or to perform necessary procedures without delay such as wound debridement, drainage, and suture removal require hybrid system.

The concept of the Vascular Surgery COVID-19 Collaborative (VASCC), to obtain international prospective data on the impact of widespread vascular surgical care delays as result of a national crisis and pandemic is very promising to increase physician and public awareness and preparedness during new waves of the disease [19].

The main limitation of this study is lack of data on patient and provider satisfaction regarding use of telemedicine services. However, this is a unique study in the Middle East region that describes the outpatient vascular surgery clinic experience during the covid-19 pandemic to set the best patient care during such pandemic and to improve the learning curve in such unprecedented crisis. The sample in the present study is representative of the country population as all vascular surgery patients are treated at the HGH. Lastly, we are working on the follow up of the current study cohort to address the strength and weakness of the given practices.

Conclusions

Advances in technology and the current pandemic situation have contributed to the transition in the mode of patient care access from the traditional in-person patient encounters to the use of telemedicine services in the vascular surgery department. Increased popularity in telemedicine is evident from previous studies which described number of patient visits and patient-satisfaction surveys. In addition, health care providers are also in agreement with these factors and expressed their convenience in continuing use of telemedicine even in the post-COVID era. However, further studies are required to establish these norms and to understand the unique social and legal context and its potential impact on practice. It is likely that post-COVID era will adopt hybrid care which combines virtual and in-person experiences across the full continuum of care, and it is important that consideration is given to the establishment and review of validated practice guidelines.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the staff of vascular surgery section.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because it includes potentially sensitive information, therefore access is limited to by request by the Ethical Review Board (IRB# MRC-01-21-430) at Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) in Doha, Qatar. Data are available from the Medical Research Center (MRC) at HMC (contact via e-mail: mrchelpdesck@hamad.qa) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

Decision Letter 0

Robert Jeenchen Chen

30 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-19489

Implementation of Vascular Surgery Teleconsultation during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights for Practice from a Tertiary Care Hospital in Qatar

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. El-Menyar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the issues and revise accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 14 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: While not unique, the authors have done an excellent job at quantifying the effects of the covid pandemic on their outpatient practice and have highlighted the use of telemedicine during the pandemic and emphasized its ongoing utility after the pandemic.

1. Results, page 7: What was the indication for sclerotherapy? Even though decreased this was still the most common procedure. In most cases this is cosmetic and purely elective. Most places discontinued purely elective procedures during the height of the pandemic.

2. Do the authors have information on telephone vs computer/video visits? In our experience, not all patients have adequate computer resources for video visits, so telephone visits are necessary.

3. The authors focus on outpatient encounters. Do they have concomitant information on pandemic effects of inpatient encounters and surgical procedures?

Reviewer #2: Please see the attached file for detailed comments. I think the present study does have potential, but would benefit from altered statistical analyses of the data file. According to the manuscript all needed data should be available.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos one.docx

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 30;16(9):e0257458. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257458.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Jul 2021

Reviewer #1: While not unique, the authors have done an excellent job at quantifying the effects of the covid pandemic on their outpatient practice and have highlighted the use of telemedicine during the pandemic and emphasized its ongoing utility after the pandemic.

1. Results, page 7: What was the indication for sclerotherapy? Even though decreased this was still the most common procedure. In most cases this is cosmetic and purely elective. Most places discontinued purely elective procedures during the height of the pandemic.

2. Do the authors have information on telephone vs computer/video visits? In our experience, not all patients have adequate computer resources for video visits, so telephone visits are necessary.

3. The authors focus on outpatient encounters. Do they have concomitant information on pandemic effects of inpatient encounters and surgical procedures?

Reply:

- This is a unique study in our Middle East region that describes the outpatient vascular surgery clinic experience during the covid-19 pandemic which needs to be shared with others to set the best patient care during such pandemic crisis. Sclerotherapy procedure was stopped during the Covid pandemic as illustrated in the figure. (In the first three month 459 cases done and only one case of sclerotherapy in September for bleeding varicose vein).

- All the information based on telephone conversation.

- During the pick of the pandemic there was a shift in the Multi-disciplinary outpatient vascular clinic for hemodialysis vascular access to inpatient consultation or direct consultation in the hemodialysis centers. This resulted in a significant drop in the number of physical visit to the vascular clinic for the hemodialysis patients.

- On the other hand, vascular access for chemotherapy rarely came to the vascular clinic even before the pandemic. The vascular coordinator for chemotherapy access at the national oncology center (NCCR) referral done for new chemotherapy access or on going issues with patients need chemotherapy and patients seen at NCCR physically by the vascular team.

- All the emergency vascular consultations are seen by the vascular surgeon on-call physically whether inpatient or in the emergency department. The pandemic did not impact on the overall number of consultation. On the other hand the surgical procedures decreased from 2506 in 2019 to 1849 in 2020 due to the discontinuation of elective varicose vein surgery.

Reviewer #2: Please see the attached file for detailed comments. I think the present study does have potential, but would benefit from altered statistical analyses of the data file. According to the manuscript all needed data should be available. Statistical analyses especially table 2 should be presented more clearly in methods section and in the legend.

Reply: done thanks

Results table 2 is hard to read (p value chi test between which values?) more accurate presentation and legend would be helpful and provide sufficient information on what is presented. Figure 3 why not present year 2020 together with figure 5 on same panel? This would be more informative? It is not clear if authors present number of out-patient clinic or vascular department. Maybe mixed? State accurately what numbers stand for.

Reply: The current study present vascular surgery outpatient clinic cases only. Tables and figures revised as per reviewer request

Discussion would be nice to begin with the major observations of the study. Second and third paragraph essential for the manuscript? If authors could demonstrate significant differences between urgent and elective vascular patient workload during pandemics and possibly these patient groups vary in requirements of out-patient contact (face-to-face or telecommunication)? Also, the multidisciplinary patient groups are interesting on this concept.

Reply:

- Discussion revised as per reviewer request.

- Our study demonstrated that 61% of the outpatient encounters at the vascular clinic was through teleconsultation in the year 2020 (COVID-19 era). Females were the majority of patients who accessed care in this period, and many of cases were follow-ups. Consultations for new vascular cases reduced significantly. The duration from February 2020 to April 2020 witnessed 95% drop in the physical visits of patients and more than 25 times increase in the telemedicine encounters. Similarly, there was 97% decrease in procedures performed in the vascular clinics during the COVID-19 period. During the pick of the pandemic, there was a shift in the multi-disciplinary outpatient vascular clinic for hemodialysis vascular access to inpatient consultation or direct consultation in the hemodialysis centers. This resulted in a significant drop in the number of physical visit to the vascular clinic for the hemodialysis patients.

- On the other hand, patients for vascular access for chemotherapy rarely come to the vascular clinic even before the pandemic. The vascular coordinators for chemotherapy access at the national oncology center (NCCR) arrange referral for new chemotherapy access or ongoing issues with patients need chemotherapy and patients will be seen at the NCCR physically by the vascular team.

- All the emergency vascular consultations are seen by the vascular surgeon on-call physically whether inpatient or in the emergency department. The pandemic did not impact on the overall number of consultation. On the other hand, the surgical procedures decreased from 2506 in 2019 to 1849 in 2020 due to the discontinuation of elective varicose vein surgery. Oncology-Vascular surgery Multidisciplinary Video Conferencing Meetings Calling using Microsoft Teams to support other surgical specialties for cancer cases take place twice-weekly ; one the uro-oncology Multidisciplinary and the other one in the sarcoma Multidisciplinary team.

- Diagnosis Category for the patients seen in the outpatient clinic is illustrated in figure 3&4. Figure 6 added

In the present manuscript authors have analyzed the frailty and benefit of telecommunication as tool for organizing vascular surgery outpatient clinic during Covid-19 era. This is a timely topic for the research and authors have a large cohort. Authors have a valid scope for the study “The goal of this study is to describe the utilization of telemedicine services in the vascular surgery clinic in a tertiary hospital in Qatar and explore some considerations for practice from the Qatar context that may be relevant in other settings globally” The major criticism is the grouping of this nice amount of valuable data, which can provide potentially interesting valuable new data on which patient sub-groups can be managed with telecommunication and who really require face-to-face contact to out-patient clinic. Comparing groups like nationals versus non-nationals does not provide globally relevant new data. The over 10 000 visits would provide more general importance if divided based on clinical presentation of vascular disease or requirement of vascular services (access patients etc). Comparing numbers of venous patients C1-3 versus C4-6 telecommunication versus face-to-face, similarly numbers treated and referred before and after Covid-19 pandemic, claudication versus CLI patients, AAA, internal consultations (nephrology, neurology) etc would provide more general new insight to utility of telemedicine in special patient groups and workload of vascular services during pandemic. This data should be available on authors data base?

Reply: thanks for these invaluable comments. As you said we mainly aimed at describing our experience from a developing country and to share it with others to improve our learning curve in such unprecedented crisis. We are working on the follow up of such subgroups as per your suggestion which will take long time and will be the scope of further publication. We added this point to the current study limitations

Abstract:

Background. Last sentence not fluent and could be pasted to another paragraph?

Reply: Sentence moved to the introduction of the main manuscript

Objectives and methods should be more accurate.

Reply: thanks, done

Results is hard to follow, and it is impossible to know where authors present data and numbers from outpatient clinic and when numbers present the workload of vascular clinic. This is also major criticism for all sections of the manuscript.

Reply: we addressed clearly that these data are from outpatient clinics only

Conclusions first sentence is on focus and as stated in the major criticism the present study has potential answering many important aspects of vascular out-patients clinic.

Reply: thanks

Introduction is nice

Reply: thanks

Methods: please see above. The grouping of the data could be more relevant. Table 1 figures 1-2 could be more readable? Statistical analyses especially table 2 should be presented more clearly in methods section and in the legend.

Reply: tables and figures improved accordingly

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos one (1)reply.doc

Decision Letter 1

Robert Jeenchen Chen

21 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-19489R1

Implementation of Vascular Surgery Teleconsultation during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from the Outpatient vascular Clinics in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Qatar

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. El-Menyar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please revise accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I think the manuscript has improved after revision. My only comment concerns paragraph above conclusions ...covid-19 pandemic which needs to be shared with others... in the final manuscript the "needs to be shared with others" could be deleted? This applies to editor and reviewers?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 30;16(9):e0257458. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257458.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


21 Jul 2021

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reply: thanks

________________________________________

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reply: thanks

________________________________________

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reply: thanks

________________________________________

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reply: thanks

________________________________________

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reply: thanks, Done

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I think the manuscript has improved after revision. My only comment concerns paragraph above conclusions ...covid-19 pandemic which needs to be shared with others... in the final manuscript the "needs to be shared with others" could be deleted? This applies to editor and reviewers?

Reply: thanks, Done

________________________________________

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reply: no retracted ref found

Attachment

Submitted filename: reply2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Robert Jeenchen Chen

18 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-19489R2

Implementation of Vascular Surgery Teleconsultation during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from the Outpatient vascular Clinics in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Qatar

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. El-Menyar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the issues and revise accordingly.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: All presented comments are addressed.

Reviewer #3: It is clear that a lot of hard work has gone in to preparing this manuscript, however it is my feeling that rather than generating new knowledge this is more of an audit/local service evaluation and perhaps could be usefully relayed in a short letter to the editor rather than a full manuscript.

Reviewer #4: Dear author,

Your submission is very well-written and was able to adress all suggested comments raised from the previous revision.

There is still a minor mistake at page 22: "Vascular surgery for arthrosclerosis" instead of atherosclerosis, which should be corrected.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 30;16(9):e0257458. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257458.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


19 Aug 2021

Thanks for the reviewers and editor. There was only one comment that already has been addressed.

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

________________________________________

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

________________________________________

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

________________________________________

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

________________________________________

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: All presented comments are addressed.

Reviewer #3: It is clear that a lot of hard work has gone in to preparing this manuscript, however it is my feeling that rather than generating new knowledge this is more of an audit/local service evaluation and perhaps could be usefully relayed in a short letter to the editor rather than a full manuscript.

Reply: Thanks, This is the first paper of this kind in the Middle East (and few worldwide) that addresses the importance and feasibility of teleconsultation in the field of vascular surgery during the unprecedented pandemic, therefore full manuscript is needed

Reviewer #4: Dear author,

Your submission is very well-written and was able to adress all suggested comments raised from the previous revision.

There is still a minor mistake at page 22: "Vascular surgery for arthrosclerosis" instead of atherosclerosis, which should be corrected.

Reply: thanks, corrected

________________________________________

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: reply3.doc

Decision Letter 3

Robert Jeenchen Chen

2 Sep 2021

Implementation of Vascular Surgery Teleconsultation during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from the Outpatient vascular Clinics in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Qatar

PONE-D-21-19489R3

Dear Dr. El-Menyar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Robert Jeenchen Chen, MD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: All presented comments are addressed

Reviewer #4: Dear authors, thank you for submitting your review. There are not any other comments regarding your manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

Acceptance letter

Robert Jeenchen Chen

17 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-19489R3

Implementation of Vascular Surgery Teleconsultation during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from the Outpatient vascular Clinics in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Qatar

Dear Dr. El-Menyar:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Robert Jeenchen Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Plos one.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Plos one (1)reply.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: reply2.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: reply3.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because it includes potentially sensitive information, therefore access is limited to by request by the Ethical Review Board (IRB# MRC-01-21-430) at Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) in Doha, Qatar. Data are available from the Medical Research Center (MRC) at HMC (contact via e-mail: mrchelpdesck@hamad.qa) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES