Research priorities relating to the delivery of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programmes: results of a modified Delphi process.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (BACPR) research priority setting project (PSP) was to identify a top 10 list of priority research questions for cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation (CVPR). METHODS: The PSP was facilitated by the BACPR clinical study group (CSG), which integrates as part of the British Heart Foundation Clinical Research Collaborative. Following a literature review to identify unanswered research questions, modified Delphi methods were used to engage CVPR-informed expert stakeholders, patients, partners and conference delegates in ranking the relevance of research questions during three rounds of an anonymous e-survey. In the first survey, unanswered questions from the literature review were ranked and respondents proposed additional questions. In the second survey, these new questions were ranked. Prioritised questions from surveys 1 and 2 were incorporated in a third/final e-survey used to identify the top 10 list. RESULTS: From 459 responses across the global CVPR community, a final top 10 list of questions were distilled from an overall bank of 76 (61 from the current evidence base and a further 15 from respondents). These were grouped across five broad categories: access and remote delivery, exercise and physical activity, optimising programme outcomes, psychosocial health and impact of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This PSP used a modified Delphi methodology to engage the international CVPR community to generate a top 10 list of research priorities within the field. These prioritised questions will directly inform future national and international CVPR research supported by the BACPR CSG.

How has technology been used to deliver cardiac rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic? An international cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals conducted by the BACPR.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation services continued during the COVID-19 pandemic and how technology has been used to deliver home-based cardiac rehabilitation. DESIGN: A mixed methods survey including questions about exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation service provision, programme diversity, patient complexity, technology use, barriers to using technology, and safety. SETTING: International survey of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals working in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes worldwide. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of programmes that continued providing exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and which technologies had been used to deliver home-based cardiac rehabilitation. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty eligible responses were received; 89.7% were from the UK. Approximately half (49.3%) of respondents reported that cardiac rehabilitation programmes were suspended due to COVID-19. Of programmes that continued, 25.8% used technology before the COVID-19 pandemic. Programmes typically started using technology within 19 days of COVID-19 becoming a pandemic. 48.8% did not provide cardiac rehabilitation to high-risk patients, telephone was most commonly used to deliver cardiac rehabilitation, and some centres used sophisticated technology such as teleconferencing. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid adoption of technology into standard practice is promising and may improve access to, and participation in, exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation beyond COVID-19. However, the exclusion of certain patient groups and programme suspension could worsen clinical symptoms and well-being, and increase hospital admissions. Refinement of current practices, with a focus on improving inclusivity and addressing safety concerns around exercise support to high-risk patients, may be needed.

Standards and core components for cardiovascular disease prevention and rehabilitation.

In 2017, the British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation published its official document detailing standards and core components for cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation. Building on the success of previous editions of this document (published in 2007 and 2012), the 2017 update aims to further emphasise to commissioners, clinicians, politicians and the public the importance of robust, quality indicators of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) service delivery. Otherwise, its overall aim remains consistent with the previous publications-to provide a precedent on which all effective cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programmes are based and a framework for use in assessment of variation in service delivery quality. In this 2017 edition, the previously described seven standards and core components have both been revised to six, with a greater focus on measurable clinical outcomes, audit and certification. The principles within the updated document underpin the six-stage pathway of care for CR, and reflect the extensive evidence base now available within the field. To help improve current services, close collaboration between commissioners and CR providers is advocated, with use of the CR costing tool in financial planning of programmes. The document specifies how quality assurance can be facilitated through local audit, and advocates routine upload of individual-level data to the annual British Heart Foundation National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation, and application for national certification ensuring attainment of a minimum quality standard. Although developed for the UK, these standards and core components may be applicable to other countries.

Do clinicians prescribe exercise similarly in patients with different cardiovascular diseases? Findings from the EAPC EXPERT working group survey.

Background Although disease-specific exercise guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) are widely available, it remains uncertain whether these different exercise guidelines are integrated properly for patients with different CVDs. The aim of this study was to assess the inter-clinician variance in exercise prescription for patients with various CVDs and to compare these prescriptions with recommendations from the EXercise Prescription in Everyday practice and Rehabilitative Training (EXPERT) tool, a digital decision support system for integrated state-of-the-art exercise prescription in CVD. Design The study was a prospective observational survey. Methods Fifty-three CV rehabilitation clinicians from nine European countries were asked to prescribe exercise intensity (based on percentage of peak heart rate (HRpeak)), frequency, session duration, programme duration and exercise type (endurance or strength training) for the same five patients. Exercise prescriptions were compared between clinicians, and relationships with clinician characteristics were studied. In addition, these exercise prescriptions were compared with recommendations from the EXPERT tool. Results A large inter-clinician variance was found for prescribed exercise intensity (median (interquartile range (IQR)): 83 (13) % of HRpeak), frequency (median (IQR): 4 (2) days/week), session duration (median (IQR): 45 (18) min/session), programme duration (median (IQR): 12 (18) weeks), total exercise volume (median (IQR): 1215 (1961) peak-effort training hours) and prescription of strength training exercises (prescribed in 78% of all cases). Moreover, clinicians' exercise prescriptions were significantly different from those of the EXPERT tool ( p < 0.001). Conclusions This study reveals significant inter-clinician variance in exercise prescription for patients with different CVDs and disagreement with an integrated state-of-the-art system for exercise prescription, justifying the need for standardization efforts regarding integrated exercise prescription in CV rehabilitation.