Out-patient physiotherapy service delivery post COVID-19: opportunity for a re-set and a new normal?

The Use of a Single-Time Sit-To-Stand Test in Ambulatory Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury by Primary Health Care Providers

Background

The uncertain health care situations, such as that created by the COVID-19 pandemic, has limited hospital access and facilitated a paradigm shift in health care toward an increased demand for standard home visits and community-based rehabilitation services, including by ambulatory individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).

Objectives

This 6-month prospective study explored the validity and reliability of a single-time sit-to-stand (STSTS) test when used by primary health care (PHC) providers, including a village health volunteer, caregiver, individual with SCI, and health professional.

Methods

Eighty-two participants were assessed for the STSTS using four arm placement conditions (arms on a walking device, arms on knees, arms free by the sides, and arms crossed over the chest) and standard measures, with prospective fall data follow-up over 6 months. Thirty participants involved in the reliability study were also assessed and reassessed for the ability to complete the STSTS conditions by PHC providers.

Results

Outcomes of the STSTS test, except the condition with arms on a walking device, could significantly discriminate lower extremity muscle strength (LEMS) and mobility of the participants (rpb = -0.58 to 0.69) with moderate concurrent validity. Outcomes of the tests without using the arms also showed moderate to almost-perfect reliability (kappa = 0.754-1.000) when assessed by PHC raters.

Conclusion

The findings suggest the use of an STSTS with arms free by the sides as a standard practical measure by PHC providers to reflect LEMS and mobility of ambulatory individuals with SCI in various clinical, community, and home-based settings.

Seated push-up tests: Reliable and valid measures for older individuals when used by primary healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

Body composition decline, lower limb impairments, and mobility deficits affect independence of older people. The exploration for a practical measure involving upper extremities may offer an alternative tool to be used by primary healthcare (PHC) providers for these individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To explore reliability and validity of seated push-up tests (SPUTs) among older participants when used by PHC providers.

METHODS

Older participants (n= 146) with an average age of > 70 years were cross-sectionally assessed using various demanding forms of SPUTs and standard measures to assess validity of the SPUTs. Reliability of the SPUTs were assessed in nine PHC raters, including an expert, health professionals, village health volunteers, and care givers.

RESULTS

The SPUTs demonstrated very good agreement, with excellent rater and test-retest reliability (kappa values > 0.87 and ICCs > 0.93, p< 0.001). Moreover, the SPUT outcomes significantly correlated with lean body mass, bone mineral contents, muscle strength and mobility of older participants (r, rp⁢b=-0.270 to 0.758, p< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SPUTs are reliable and valid for older adults when used by PHC members. The incorporation of such practical measures is particularly important during this COVID-19 pandemic with limited people's hospital access.

A qualitative investigation into the results of a discrete choice experiment and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for virtual consultations

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a qualitative investigation on a subset of participants from a previously completed Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to understand why factors identified from the DCE are important, how they influenced preference for virtual consultations (VC) and how COVID-19 has influenced preference for VC.

METHODS

A quota sample was recruited from participants who participated in our DCE. We specifically targeted participants who were strongly in favour of face-to-face consultations (F2F - defined as choosing all or mostly F2F in the DCE) or strongly in favour of virtual consultations (VC - defined as choosing all or mostly VC consultations in the DCE) to elicit a range of views. Interviews were conducted via telephone or videoconference, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVIVO software. A directed content analysis of transcripts was undertaken in accordance with a coding framework based on the results of the DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on preference.

RESULTS

Eight F2F and 5 VC participants were included. Shorter appointments were less 'worth' travelling in for than a longer appointment and rush hour travel had an effect on whether travelling was acceptable, particularly when patients experienced pain as a result of extended journeys. Socioeconomic factors such as cost of travel, paid time off work, access to equipment and support in its use was important. Physical examinations were preferable in the clinic whereas talking therapies were acceptable over VC. Several participants commented on how VC interferes with the patient-clinician relationship. VC during COVID-19 has provided patients with the opportunity to access their care virtually without the need for travel. For some, this was extremely positive.

CONCLUSIONS

This study investigated the results of a previously completed DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for VC. Theoretically informative insights were gained to explain the results of the DCE. The use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic provided opportunities to access care without the need for face-to-face social interactions. Many felt that VC would become more commonplace after the pandemic, whereas others were keen to return to F2F consultations as much as possible. This qualitative study provides additional context to the results of a previously completed DCE.