RESUMO
Background: Respiratory therapists (RTs) are expected to stay updated on technology, treatments, research, and best practices to provide high-quality patient care. They must possess the skills to interpret, evaluate, and contribute to evidence-based practices. However, RTs often rely on research from other professions that may not fully address their specific needs, leading to insufficient guidance for their practice. Additionally, there has been no exploration of knowledge gaps and research needs from RTs' perspectives to enhance their practice and patient outcomes. The research questions guiding this study were: (i) what are the perceived practice-oriented knowledge gaps? and (ii) what are the necessary research priorities across the respiratory therapy profession according to experts in respiratory therapy? Methods: A qualitative description study was conducted using semi-structured focus groups with 40 expert RTs from seven areas of practice across Canada. Data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: We identified four major themes relating to what these experts perceive as the practice-oriented gaps and necessary research priorities across the respiratory therapy profession: 1) system-level impact of RTs, 2) optimizing respiratory therapy practices, 3) scholarship on the respiratory therapy profession and 4) respiratory therapy education. Discussion: The findings establish a fundamental understanding of the current gaps and the specific needs of RTs that require further investigation. Participants strongly emphasized the significance of research priorities that consider the breadth and depth of the respiratory therapy profession, which underscores the complex nature of respiratory therapy and its application in practice. Conclusion: The unique insights garnered from this study highlight the knowledge gaps and research needs specific to RTs. These findings pave the way for further exploration, discourse, and research aimed at understanding the specific contributions and requirements of RTs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common symptom in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients recovering from COVID-19, but no fatigue measurement scales or questions have been validated in these populations. The objective of this study was to perform validity assessments of the fatigue severity scale (FSS) and two single-item screening questions (SISQs) for fatigue in patients recovering from COVID-19. METHODS: We examined patients ≥ 28 days after their first SARS-CoV-2 infection who were hospitalized for their acute illness, as well as non-hospitalized patients referred for persistent symptoms. Patients completed questionnaires through 1 of 4 Post COVID-19 Recovery Clinics in British Columbia, Canada. Construct validity was assessed by comparing FSS scores to quality of life and depression measures. Two SISQs were evaluated based on the ability to classify fatigue (FSS score ≥ 4). RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned in 548 hospitalized and 546 non-hospitalized patients, with scores computable in 96.4% and 98.2% of patients respectively. Cronbach's alpha was 0.96 in both groups. The mean ± SD FSS score was 4.4 ± 1.8 in the hospitalized and 5.2 ± 1.6 in the non-hospitalized group, with 62.5% hospitalized and 78.9% non-hospitalized patients classified as fatigued. Ceiling effects were 7.6% in the hospitalized and 16.1% in non-hospitalized patients. FSS scores negatively correlated with EQ-5D scores in both groups (Spearman's rho - 0.6 in both hospitalized and non-hospitalized; p < 0.001) and were higher among patients with a positive PHQ-2 depression screen (5.4 vs. 4.0 in hospitalized and 5.9 vs. 4.9 in non-hospitalized; p < 0.001). An SISQ asking whether there was "fatigue present" had a sensitivity of 70.6% in hospitalized and 83.2% in non-hospitalized patients; the "always feeling tired" SISQ, had a sensitivity of 70.5% and 89.6% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue was common and severe in patients referred for post COVID-19 assessment. Overall, the FSS is suitable for measuring fatigue in these patients, as there was excellent data quality, strong internal consistency, and construct validity. However, ceiling effects may be a limitation in the non-hospitalized group. SISQs had good sensitivity for identifying clinically relevant fatigue in non-hospitalized patients but only moderate sensitivity in the hospitalized group, indicating that there were more false negatives.
