Exploring the delivery of remote physiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: UK wide service evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: During the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, physiotherapists changed rapidly to working remotely. Research demonstrates the benefits of remote physiotherapy, but little is known about its implementation in practice. PURPOSE: Explore the take-up and delivery of remote physiotherapy during the pandemic in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Sequential mixed methods evaluation with physiotherapists leading remote physiotherapy delivery. Two-stage approach included online survey (2020) and semi-structured interviews with documentary/data analysis (2021). RESULTS: There were 1620 physiotherapists who completed the survey. The most used devices were telephone (n = 942,71.0%) and the AttendAnywhere platform (n = 511, 38.5%). Remote consultations were frequently used for initial assessment (n = 1105, 83%), screening/triage (n = 882, 67%), or to review, monitor, and progress treatment (n = 982-1004, 74%-76%). Qualitative survey responses reflected respondents' response to COVID-19 and delivery of remote physiotherapy. Twelve remote physiotherapy leads were then purposively sampled across clinical areas. Three main themes emerged from interviews: response to Covid-19, delivery of remote physiotherapy, and future of remote physiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Remote physiotherapy was safe, feasible, and acceptable for those who accessed it. There were patients for which it was deemed unsuitable across clinical areas. In practice, it should be combined with in-person consultation based on patients' needs/preferences. Further research should explore post-pandemic maintenance of remote delivery.

A scoping review of the feasibility, acceptability, and effects of physiotherapy delivered remotely.

PURPOSE: To review the feasibility, acceptability, and effects of physiotherapy when delivered remotely. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CINAHL, MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, and Cochrane Library databases (January 2015-February 2022) were searched and screened for papers (of any design) investigating remote physiotherapy. Data were extracted by two independent raters. Methodological quality of the identified papers was not assessed. Thematic content analysis drew out the key issues. RESULTS: Forty-one papers (including nine systemic reviews and six with meta-analyses) were selected involving musculoskeletal, stroke and neurological, pulmonary, and cardiac conditions. The most commonly delivered intervention was remote exercise provision, usually following assessment which was completed in-person. All studies, which assessed it, found that remote physiotherapy was comparably effective to in-person delivery at lower cost. Patient satisfaction was high, they found remote physiotherapy to be more accessible and convenient. It boosted confidence and motivation by reminding patients when and how to exercise but adherence was mixed. No adverse events were reported. Barriers related to access to the technology; technical problems and concerns about therapists' workload. CONCLUSIONS: Remote physiotherapy is safe, feasible, and acceptable to patients. Its effects are comparable with traditional care at lower cost.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONRemote physiotherapy is safe, feasible, and acceptable to patients with comparable effects to in-person care.Remote delivery increases access to physiotherapy especially for those who cannot travel to a treatment facility whether due to distance or disability.Remote physiotherapy may increase adherence to exercise by reminding patients when and how to exercise.Remote physiotherapy does not suit everyone, thus a hybrid system with both in-person and remote delivery may be most effective.

Using Smartphone TechnolOGy to Support an EffecTive Home ExeRcise Intervention to Prevent Falls amongst Community-Dwelling Older Adults: The TOGETHER Feasibility RCT.

INTRODUCTION: Falls have major implications for quality of life, independence, and cost of health services. Strength and balance training has been found to be effective in reducing the rate/risk of falls, as long as there is adequate fidelity to the evidence-based programme. The aims of this study were to (1) assess the feasibility of using the "Motivate Me" and "My Activity Programme" interventions to support falls rehabilitation when delivered in practice and (2) assess study design and trial procedures for the evaluation of the intervention. METHODS: A two-arm pragmatic feasibility randomized controlled trial was conducted with five health service providers in the UK. Patients aged 50+ years eligible for a falls rehabilitation exercise programme from community services were recruited and received either (1) standard service with a smartphone for outcome measurement only or (2) standard service plus the "Motivate Me" and "My Activity Programme" apps. The primary outcome was feasibility of the intervention, study design, and procedures (including recruitment rate, adherence, and dropout). Outcome measures include balance, function, falls, strength, fear of falling, health-related quality of life, resource use, and adherence, measured at baseline, three-month, and six-month post-randomization. Blinded assessors collected the outcome measures. RESULTS: Twenty four patients were randomized to control group and 26 to intervention group, with a mean age of 77.6 (range 62-92) years. We recruited 37.5% of eligible participants across the five clinical sites. 77% in the intervention group completed their full exercise programme (including the use of the app). Response rates for outcome measures at 6 months were 77-80% across outcome measures, but this was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a mean 2.6 ± 1.9 point difference between groups in change in Berg balance score from baseline to 3 months and mean 4.4 ± 2.7 point difference from baseline to 6 months in favour of the intervention group. Less falls (1.8 ± 2.8 vs. 9.1 ± 32.6) and less injurious falls (0.1 ± 0.5 vs. 0.4 ± 0.6) in the intervention group and higher adherence scores at three (17.7 ± 6.8 vs. 13.1 ± 6.5) and 6 months (15.2 ± 7.8 vs. 14.9 ± 6.1). There were no related adverse events. Health professionals and patients had few technical issues with the apps. CONCLUSIONS: The motivational apps and trial procedures were feasible for health professionals and patients. There are positive indications from outcome measures in the feasibility trial, and key criteria for progression to full trial were met.

One-to-One and Group-Based Teleconferencing for Falls Rehabilitation: Usability, Acceptability, and Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Falls have implications for the health of older adults. Strength and balance interventions significantly reduce the risk of falls; however, patients seldom perform the dose of exercise that is required based on evidence. Health professionals play an important role in supporting older adults as they perform and progress in their exercises. Teleconferencing could enable health professionals to support patients more frequently, which is important in exercise behavior. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the overall concept and acceptability of teleconferencing for the delivery of falls rehabilitation with health care professionals and older adults and to examine the usability, acceptability, and feasibility of teleconferencing delivery with health care professionals and patients. METHODS: There were 2 stages to the research: patient and public involvement workshops and usability and feasibility testing. A total of 2 workshops were conducted, one with 5 health care professionals and the other with 8 older adults from a community strength and balance exercise group. For usability and feasibility testing, we tested teleconferencing both one-to-one and in small groups on a smartphone with one falls service and their patients for 3 weeks. Semistructured interviews and focus groups were used to explore acceptability, usability, and feasibility. Focus groups were conducted with the service that used teleconferencing with patients and 2 other services that received only a demonstration of how teleconferencing works. Qualitative data were analyzed using the framework approach. RESULTS: In the workshops, the health care professionals thought that teleconferencing provided an opportunity to save travel time. Older adults thought that it could enable increased support. Safety is of key importance, and delivery needs to be carefully considered. Both older adults and health care professionals felt that it was important that technology did not eliminate face-to-face contact. There were concerns from older adults about the intrusiveness of technology. For the usability and feasibility testing, 7 patients and 3 health care professionals participated, with interviews conducted with 6 patients and a focus group with the health care team. Two additional teams (8 health professionals) took part in a demonstration and focus group. Barriers and facilitators were identified, with 5 barriers around reliability due to poor connectivity, cost of connectivity, safety concerns linked to positioning of equipment and connectivity, intrusiveness of technology, and resistance to group teleconferencing. Two facilitators focused on the positive benefits of increased support and monitoring and positive solutions for future improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Teleconferencing as a way of delivering fall prevention interventions can be acceptable to older adults, patients, and health care professionals if it works effectively. Connectivity, where there is no Wi-Fi provision, is one of the largest issues. Therefore, local infrastructure needs to be improved. A larger usability study is required to establish whether better equipment for delivery improves usability.

Smartphone Apps to Support Falls Rehabilitation Exercise: App Development and Usability and Acceptability Study.

BACKGROUND: Falls have implications for older adults' health and well-being. Strength and balance interventions significantly reduce the risk of falls. However, patients do not always perform the unsupervised home exercise needed for fall reduction. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop motivational smartphone apps co-designed with health professionals and older adults to support patients to perform exercise proven to aid fall reduction and to explore the apps' usability and acceptability with both health professionals and patients. METHODS: There were 3 phases of app development that included analysis, design, and implementation. For analysis, we examined the literature to establish key app components and had a consultation with 12 older adults attending a strength and balance class, exercise instructors, and 3 fall services. For design, we created prototype apps and conducted 2 patient and public involvement workshops, one with 5 health professionals and the second with 8 older adults from an exercise group. The apps were revised based on the feedback. For implementation, we tested them with one fall service and their patients for 3 weeks. Participatory evaluation was used through testing, semistructured interviews, and focus groups to explore acceptability and usability. Focus groups were conducted with the service that tested the apps and two other services. Qualitative data were analyzed using the framework approach. RESULTS: On the basis of findings from the literature and consultations in the analysis phase, we selected Behavior Change Techniques, such as goal setting, action planning, and feedback on behavior, to be key parts of the app. We developed goals using familiar icons for patients to select and add while self-reporting exercise and decided to develop 2 apps, one for patients (My Activity Programme) and one for health professionals (Motivate Me). This enabled health professionals to guide patients through the goal-setting process, making it more accessible to nontechnology users. Storyboards were created during the design phase, leading to prototypes of "Motivate Me" and "My Activity Programme." Key changes from the workshops included being able to add more details about the patients' exercise program and a wider selection of goals within "Motivate Me." The overall app design was acceptable to health professionals and older adults. In total, 7 patients and 3 health professionals participated in testing in the implementation phase, with interviews conducted with 6 patients and focus groups, with 3 teams (11 health professionals). Barriers, facilitators, and further functionality were identified for both apps, with 2 cross-cutting themes around phone usability and confidence. CONCLUSIONS: The motivational apps were found to be acceptable for older adults taking part in the design stage and patients and health professionals testing the apps in a clinical setting. User-led design is important to ensure that the apps are usable and acceptable.

A realist evaluation of the implementation of open visiting in an acute care setting for older people.

BACKGROUND: Open visiting refers to the principle of unrestricted visiting hours in the hospital setting to enable relatives, families and carers to visit at any time. There has been recognition that open visiting supports the principle of patient and family supported care and improves communication. Despite this there has been difficulty in implementing open visiting and barriers identified. The aims of this study were therefore to evaluate the implementation of open visiting, the barriers to implementation, sustainability and the impact of open visiting on communication between health care professionals, families and carers. METHODS: The study was conducted on two large acute wards for the older person. Realist evaluation methods were used to understand 'what works well, how, for whom and to what extent.' Mixed methods were employed including qualitative interviews and descriptive analyses of routine data sets. Following the methodology of realist evaluation, programme theories were identified a long with the context, mechanisms and outcomes of implementation, to better understand the implementation process. RESULTS: The results of this study identified some key findings, demonstrating that open visiting does improve communication and can help to build trusting relationships between families/carers and health care professionals (HCP). Barriers to implementation were based on the belief that it would impinge on routines within the ward setting. To achieve the principles of patient and family/carer centred care, the key mechanisms are the confidence and skills of individual nurses and health care assistants to engage with relatives/carers, whilst retaining a sense of control, particularly when care is being delivered to other patients. CONCLUSION: In summary, open visiting creates a positive culture which fosters better relationships between families/carers and HCPs. Involving families/carers as partners in care does not happen automatically in an environment where open visiting is the policy, but requires engagement with staff to encourage and support relatives/carers.

Can smartphone technology be used to support an effective home exercise intervention to prevent falls amongst community dwelling older adults?: the TOGETHER feasibility RCT study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Falls have major implications for quality of life, independence and cost to the health service. Strength and balance training has been found to be effective in reducing the rate/risk of falls, as long as there is adequate fidelity to the evidence-based programme. Health services are often unable to deliver the evidence-based dose of exercise and older adults do not always sufficiently adhere to their programme to gain full outcomes. Smartphone technology based on behaviour-change theory has been used to support healthy lifestyles, but not falls prevention exercise. This feasibility trial will explore whether smartphone technology can support patients to better adhere to an evidence-based rehabilitation programme and test study procedures/outcome measures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm, pragmatic feasibility randomised controlled trial will be conducted with health services in Manchester, UK. Seventy-two patients aged 50+years eligible for a falls rehabilitation exercise programme from two community services will receive: (1) standard service with a smartphone for outcome measurement only or (2) standard service plus a smartphone including the motivational smartphone app. The primary outcome is feasibility of the intervention, study design and procedures. The secondary outcome is to compare standard outcome measures for falls, function and adherence to instrumented versions collected using smartphone. Outcome measures collected include balance, function, falls, strength, fear of falling, health-related quality of life, resource use and adherence. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 3 and 6-month post-randomisation. Interviews/focus groups with health professionals and participants further explore feasibility of the technology and trial procedures. Primarily analyses will be descriptive. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol is approved by North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (Rec ref:18/NW/0457, 9/07/2018). User groups and patient representatives were consulted to inform trial design, and are involved in study recruitment. Results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. A dissemination event will be held in Manchester to present the results of the trial. The protocol adheres to the recommended Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12830220; Pre-results.