COVID-19: planning for the aftermath to manage the aftershocks

Re/connecting with "home": a mixed methods study of service provider and patient perspectives to facilitate implementing rehabilitation in the home for reconditioning

PURPOSE

To explore the views of healthcare professionals and patients about the advantages and disadvantages of rehabilitation in the home (RITH) for reconditioning, and identify factors that should contribute to the successful implementation of a consensus-based RITH model for reconditioning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Interviews with 24 healthcare professionals and 21 surveys (comprising Likert scale and free text responses) of inpatients undergoing rehabilitation for reconditioning provided study data. Interpretive thematic analysis was used to analyse interview data; descriptive statistics analysed Likert scale responses; patient written responses assisted with the interpretation of themes developed from the interview data.

RESULTS

Two major themes were elicited in this study: the home is a physical setting and the home is a lived space. Advantages and disadvantages of RITH for patients, carers and healthcare professionals were identified within these themes. Appropriate patient selection; effective communication with patients and carers, and within RITH teams; adequate patient and carer support; ensuring the safety of patients and staff; and education of patients, carers and healthcare professionals are essential for the satisfactory implementation of RITH.

CONCLUSION

The concept of home shapes the delivery of RITH. Recognising the advantages and disadvantages of RITH highlights important considerations needed to successfully implement RITH for reconditioning.

Developing a model for rehabilitation in the home as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning: a Delphi survey in Australia

BACKGROUND

Reconditioning for patients who have experienced functional decline following medical illness, surgery or treatment for cancer accounts for approximately 26% of all reported inpatient rehabilitation episodes in Australia. Rehabilitation in the home (RITH) has the potential to offer a cost-effective, high-quality alternative for appropriate patients, helping to reduce pressure on the acute care sector. This study sought to gain consensus on a model for RITH as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of health professionals working in the rehabilitation field was identified from across Australia and invited to participate in a three-round online Delphi survey. Survey items followed the patient journey, and also included items on practitioner roles, clinical governance, and budgetary considerations. Survey items mostly comprised statements seeking agreement on 5-point Likert scales (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Free text boxes allowed participants to qualify item answers or make comments. Analysis of quantitative data used descriptive statistics; qualitative data informed question content in subsequent survey rounds or were used in understanding item responses.

RESULTS

One-hundred and ninety-eight health professionals received an invitation to participate. Of these, 131/198 (66%) completed round 1, 101/131 (77%) completed round 2, and 78/101 (77%) completed round 3. Consensus (defined as ≥ 70% agreement or disagreement) was achieved on over 130 statements. These related to the RITH patient journey (including patient assessment and development of the care plan, case management and program provision, and patient and program outcomes); clinical governance and budgetary considerations; and included items for initial patient screening, patient eligibility and case manager roles. A consensus-based model for RITH was developed, comprising five key steps and the actions within each.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong support amongst survey participants was found for RITH as hospital substitution to be widely available for appropriate patients needing reconditioning. Supportive legislative and payment systems, mechanisms that allow for the integration of primary care, and appropriate clinical governance frameworks for RITH are required, if broad implementation is to be achieved. Studies comparing clinical outcomes and cost-benefit of RITH to inpatient rehabilitation for patients requiring reconditioning are also needed.

Rehabilitation Care at the Time of Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Scoping Review of Health System Recommendations

Purpose: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2 has imposed a significant burden on health care systems, economies, and social systems in many countries around the world. The provision of rehabilitation services for persons with active COVID-19 infection poses challenges to maintaining a safe environment for patients and treating providers. Materials and Methods: Established frameworks were used to guide the scoping review methodology. Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL databases from inception to August 1, 2020, and prominent rehabilitation organizations' websites were searched. Study Selection: We included articles and reports if they were focused on rehabilitation related recommendations for COVID-19 patients, treating providers, or the general population. Data Extraction: Pairs of team members used a pre-tested data abstraction form to extract data from included full-text articles. The strength and the quality of the extracted recommendations were evaluated by two reviewers using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: We retrieved 6,468 citations, of which 2,086 were eligible for review, after duplicates were removed. We excluded 1,980 citations based on title and abstract screening. Of the screened full-text articles, we included all 106 studies. A summary of recommendations is presented. We assessed the overall evidence to be strong and of fair quality. Conclusion: The rehabilitation setting, and processes, logistics, and patient and healthcare provider precaution recommendations identified aim to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and ensure adequate and safe rehabilitation services, whether face-to-face or through teleservices. The COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly changing. Further updates will be needed over time in order to incorporate emerging best evidence into rehabilitation guidelines.