Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- - (3)
- COVID-19 (1)
- alliance (1)
- assessment (1)
- behavior (1)
- clinical decision (1)
- evidence (1)
- feedback (1)
- guideline [MeSH] (1)
- healthcare (1)
- interaction (1)
- neurorehabilitation (1)
- rating (1)
- recommendation (1)
- rehabilitation (1)
- review – systematic (1)
- telemedicine (1)
- therapy (1)
- virtual reality (1)
Institute
Publisher
In catastrophic situations such as pandemics, patients' healthcare including admissions to hospitals and emergency services are challenged by the risk of infection and by limitations of healthcare resources. In such a setting, the use of telemedicine interventions has become extremely important. New technologies have proved helpful in pandemics as a solution to improve the quality of life in vulnerable patients such as persons with neurological diseases. Moreover, telemedicine interventions provide at-home solutions allowing clinicians to telemonitor and assess patients remotely, thus minimizing risk of infection. After a review of different studies using telemedicine in neurological patients, we propose a telemedicine process flow for healthcare of subjects with chronic neurological disease to respond to the new challenges for delivering quality healthcare during the transformation of public and private healthcare organizations around the world forced by COVID-19 pandemic contingency. This telemedicine process flow represents a replacement for in-person treatment and thereby the provision equitable access to the care of vulnerable people. It is conceptualized as comprehensive service including (1) teleassistance with patient counseling and medical treatment, (2) telemonitoring of patients' health conditions and any changes over time, as well as (3) telerehabilitation, i.e., interventions to assess and promote body functions, activities, and consecutively participation. The hereby proposed telemedicine process flow could be adopted on a large scale to improve the public health response during healthcare crises like the COVID-19 pandemic but could equally promote equitable health care independent of people's mobility or location with respect to the specialized health care center.
Objective: To develop an instrument for the observation of therapeutic communication interactions during rehabilitation sessions and test its inter-rater reliability.
Methods: The new instrument THER-I-ACT (THERapy–related Inter-ACTion) has been designed to assess both the frequency and timing of therapeutic interactions in the thematic fields information provision, feedback, other motivational interaction, and bonding. For this inter-rater reliability study, a sample of stroke survivors received arm rehabilitation as either arm ability training, arm basis training, or mirror therapy, or neglect training as individually indicated. Therapy sessions were video-recorded (one for each participant) and therapeutic interactions rated by two independent raters using THER-I-ACT.
Results: With regard to the instrument's comprehensiveness to document therapeutic interactions with pre-defined categories the data from 29 sessions suggested almost complete coverage. Inter-rater reliability was very high both for individual categories of therapeutic interaction (frequency and time used for interaction) (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC 0.91–1.00) and summary scores for the thematic fields of interaction (again for frequency and time used for interaction) (ICC 0.98–1.00).
The inter-rater reliability for rating engagement and being focussed for both the therapist and patient was substantial (ICC 0.71 and 0.86).
Conclusions: The observational study documented that by use of the newly designed THER-I-ACT various types of therapy-related communication interactions performed by therapists can be assessed with a very high inter-rater reliability. In addition, the thematic fields and categories of therapeutic interaction as defined by the instrument comprehensively covered the type of interaction that occurred in the therapeutic sessions observed.
Quality of healthcare can be improved when the best external evidence available is integrated in clinical decision-making in a systematic explicit manner. With the rapid expansion of clinical evidence, the opportunities for evidence-based high-quality healthcare increase. Paradoxically, the likelihood of any one person to get a complete and balanced picture of the evidence available decreases. This is especially true for rehabilitation interventions that are complex in nature and where clinical research is rather diverse. Given the complex nature of the evidence, there is a substantial risk of misinterpreting the complex information both at the level of individual sources (e.g., reports of clinical trials) and for aggregated data syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses). These risks are inherent in these sources themselves and are in addition related to the methodological expertise necessary to make valid use of the evidence for clinical decision-making. Taken together, there is a great demand for systematic structured guidance from evidence to clinical decision. This methodology paper describes a structured process for the development and report of evidence-based clinical practice recommendations that uses systematic reviews and meta-analyses as evidence source. It provides a comprehensive framework with specific requirements for the development group, the formulation of the healthcare question addressed, the systematic search for the evidence, its critical appraisal, the extraction and the outcome-centered presentation of the evidence, the rating of its quality, strengths and weaknesses, any further considerations relevant for decision-making, and an explicit recommendation statement along with its justification, implementation, and resource aspects. The suggested methodology uses international standards in evidence synthesis, critical appraisal of systematic reviews, rating the quality of evidence, characteristics of recommendations, and guideline development as developed by Cochrane, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), and AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation). An added distinctive feature of the methodology is to focus on the most up-to-date, most valid evidence and hence to support the development of valid practice recommendations in an efficient way. Practice recommendations generated by such a valid methodology would be generally applicable and promote evidence-based clinical practice globally.