RESUMO
ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a workplace-delivered outpatient multidisciplinary service (ReCOV) for staff experiencing post COVID-19 condition ('Long COVID').MethodsA mixed-methods study of staff at a large, tertiary hospital with Long COVID who attended the service was conducted. Participants completed questionnaires to determine baseline symptoms and were offered allied health appointments for up to 12weeks each based on clinical indication. Acceptability, implementation, practicality and limited efficacy were evaluated via one-on-one semi-structured interviews and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Limited efficacy was evaluated via pre- and post-questionnaires and demand via multidisciplinary utilisation.ResultsTwenty-three (median age 37 [interquartile range 30-45] years, 52% female) participants were included. Participants had appointments with a median of 4 [3-5] different professions; most commonly exercise physiology (n=19, 83%), occupational therapy (n=17, 74%) and neuropsychology (n=15, 65%). Median time spent on the ReCOV service was 15 [9-19] weeks. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were completed and analysed. Participants valued ReCOV for being a COVID-19 specific, convenient, flexible and multidisciplinary service at their workplace. Participants preferred the service to have been available for longer than 12weeks to achieve further benefits as many participants perceived little change in physical health.ConclusionsAttending a multidisciplinary service located at their workplace was feasible for staff to manage post COVID-19 symptoms. Further research is required to confirm the efficacy on patient outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary approach is required for the management of long COVID. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility (demand, implementation, practicality, acceptability, and limited efficacy) of an allied-health-led multidisciplinary symptom management service (ReCOV) for long COVID. METHODS: A single-group observational cohort feasibility study was conducted to determine demand (referrals), acceptability (survey), implementation (waitlist times, health professions seen), practicality (adverse events), and limited efficacy (admission and discharge scores from the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), Patient Health Questionnaire, and EuroQol 5D-5L). Data are presented as median [interquartile range] or count (percentage). RESULTS: During the study, 143 participants (aged 42.00 [32.00-51.00] years, 68% women) participated in ReCOV. Participants were waitlisted for 3.86 [2.14-9.86] weeks and engaged with 5.00 [3.00-6.00] different health professionals. No adverse events occurred. The thematic analysis revealed that ReCOV was helpful but did not fully meet the needs of all participants. Limited efficacy testing indicated that participants had improved understanding and control (p < 0.001) of symptoms (BIPQ) and a small improvement in EQ VAS score (median difference 5.50 points [0.00-25.00], p = 0.004]). CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary service was safe and mostly acceptable to participants for the management of long COVID. Further research should investigate the clinical and cost effectiveness of such a service, including optimal service duration and patient outcomes.