The outbreak of the plague has changed the world as we know it. The processes that were already in operation had to be expedited, but the systems had to be built from scratch. It was in this context that Kovid-19 health teams accelerated the development and deployment of new techniques to treat patients.
Telemedicine is a remote medicine that can be used to diagnose as well as treat various ailments. In the latter case, it has been able to provide better outcomes for patients with chronic neurological disorders, thereby reducing the need for patients to be transferred to medical centers and to those who live in more remote areas. In this particular epidemic situation, this reduces both the risk and the cost of moving from home to institution and the time it takes.
On the other hand, it enabled all medical teams to continuously monitor patients, thus helping to detect complications early and minimize the consequences of cognitive and motor-level isolation.
Now, like any ideal shift, this too has an adaptive process, and that is where the disadvantage of the telemedicine lie lies: in adapting the patient and health team. When assessing a patient for initiating a neuro rehabilitation program, one should consider what is needed, set goals, and formulate an interim treatment plan that seeks to improve quality of life. In this way, opportunities are offered to provide a better outcome with mixed rehabilitation plans for treatment in private / remote or conventional manner only, due to the risk of rehabilitation with minimal supervision. Some of the reasons for this may be due to the difficulty of using the technology or the slight recognition of the lack of human contact. For this reason, it is essential to evaluate each case separately.
Nevertheless, in compulsory isolation, we are amazed at the ability of many patients and their families to participate in and adapt to treatment. The efficacy of teledemycin is proven. In fact, various studies have been conducted in different parts of the world to assess the effectiveness of treatments and the acceptance of health groups and patients. So much so that in recent years studies in the United States and Italy have shown similarities between telemedicine and face care, and no significant differences have been found between the two systems.
Similarly, a significant advantage of this type of treatment is the ability to identify new boundaries and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in a more environmental and “real” environment beyond the hospital environment. To the activities of patients’ daily lives.
Finally, the development of interdisciplinary tele rehabilitation programs with personalized activities, guided by therapists in a safe, controlled, and patient-private manner, means a challenge with good outcomes. Undoubtedly, the future that we can develop will come with new tools that will make us more accessible and useful in a modern medicine.