Telehealth Education: An Interprofessional Online Immersion Experience in Response to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, universities halted in-person education and health care pivoted to telehealth delivery models. This article describes a nurse-led educational program that transitioned to fully online delivery to prepare interprofessional teams of health care students to use telehealth during the pandemic and beyond. METHOD: Participants included 67 students from seven professions. Researchers developed "the four Ps of telehealth" model to guide the curriculum. The program used pre- and postassessments including the Confidence in Planning for Telehealth Scale, the Telehealth Etiquette Knowledge Scale, and the Confidence in Providing Telehealth Scale. RESULTS: There were significant improvements in scores on all scales following the program (p = .000). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that comprehensive telehealth education should focus on more than just delivering telehealth but also planning and preparing for its delivery. Programs such as this online program can serve as a model for future telehealth programs to prepare providers. [J Nurs Educ. 2020;59(10):570-576.].

Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of Clinical Performance-Based Outcome Measures of Walking for Individuals With Lower Limb Amputations: A Systematic Review.

Background: Clinical outcome measures are important to use for individuals with lower limb amputations (LLA) because such individuals require intensive functional gait training before and after being fitted with prostheses. Using standardized instruments throughout the episode of care allows clinicians to objectively monitor patient progress, make evidence-based decisions regarding the plan of care, and communicate results in meaningful ways to patients, payers, and other clinicians. Many clinical outcome measures exist, but not all have been validated and shown to be reliable within this population of interest. Purpose: The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the psychometric properties of all current performance-based outcome measures applicable to individuals with lower limb amputations. Data Sources: Reviewers searched for articles using the online databases PubMed/MEDLINE and CINAHL. Reviewers also conducted a manual search of the reference list of 1 of the previously published systematic reviews to identify any additional studies not detected with the online database search. Study Selection: The 2 reviewers screened titles and abstracts for relevance. The same reviewers obtained and read full-text articles of the potentially relevant studies. Reviewers resolved any discrepancies of the inclusion assessment by further discussion. Data Extraction: The reviewers created tables to extract psychometric properties of interest from the included articles. Both reviewers extracted the data from the articles and placed relevant values into a table for each primary outcome measure identified. Data Synthesis: The rigor of study reporting was guided by use of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Checklist. Each reviewer independently read and appraised the included articles, assigning a score to each checklist item. The sum of scores for each item was calculated to appraise the overall quality of reporting of the included articles. Limitations: Review-level limitations included the absence of a third reviewer to settle any disagreements on article inclusion and article appraisal. Additionally, the percentage of reviewer agreement on article appraisal was not determined before disagreements about checklist item satisfaction were resolved. Furthermore, reviewers only extracted data on reliability, validity, and responsiveness; instrument characteristics, such as floor and ceiling effects, are also important. Conclusions: Valid and reliable performance-based clinical measures of ambulation in individuals with LLA were identified. Further research should investigate the minimally clinical, important difference of these clinical measures and address trends in unmet reporting guidelines.