Search

Background: COVID‐19 necessitated emergency telepractice for student‐led speech‐language therapy clinical practicals in training institutions, with limited preparation and evidence‐based guidelines. Beyond the pandemic, practitioners and university training sites are likely to continue to offer telepractice necessitating thorough preparation for telepractice services underpinned by a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in online therapy. Aims: Adopting realist evaluation principles, our aim in this paper was to explore broadly what works and does not work in a set of student‐led telepractice sessions in a diverse, resource‐limited context. The broader goal of this project was to provide evidence‐based support to enhance the efficiency and success of telepractice sessions in student clinical training contexts. Methods & Procedures: We used qualitative observational methods with reflexive thematic analysis to analyse 28 video recordings and 61 observation notes of student‐led paediatric telepractice sessions from a South African university clinic as part of a pilot study. Outcomes & Results: We identified four overarching considerations for student‐led telepractice: (1) additional, specific preparation is required, (2) with greater management of technology and adaptation of tasks, especially during times of poor connectivity; (3) telepractice relies heavily on caregiver input and collaboration; and (4) promoting engagement online, holding a client's attention, building rapport and offering reinforcement are critical skills that are complicated by the lack of face‐to‐face contact. Conclusions & Implications: Our findings indicate that telepractice pedagogy needs to be explicitly taught and students require practical assistance as they learn how to use this service delivery approach effectively. There are some aspects peculiar to telepractice that require unique consideration and planning, especially in contexts where service providers and users may be unfamiliar with this form of service provision. The findings of this pilot study can be used by clinical educators and student clinicians to enhance clinical training opportunities involving telepractice. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Many speech‐language therapy (SLT) student clinicians had to transition quickly to telepractice service provision during COVID‐19 with limited existing guidelines and support, especially in contexts where teletherapy is typically non‐existent or difficult to access. Although there is some literature available on experiences of telepractice, there is very little evidence‐based research which explores the mechanics of such sessions in real‐time and which offers practical support to student clinicians and clinical educators engaging in this mode of service delivery. What this study adds: This pilot study examined video‐recorded, student‐led, paediatric, speech‐language teletherapy sessions to understand challenges and considerations involved in using telepractice as a clinical training tool. Findings show that additional preparation for telepractice sessions is required, particularly in contexts of poor digital literacy; students must learn to manage technology, especially when connectivity poses a challenge, and adapt therapy tasks for online work with clients; telepractice relies heavily on caregiver input and collaboration, more so than in in‐person consultations, and this relationship requires careful management; and promoting engagement online, holding a client's attention, building rapport and offering reinforcement are critical yet challenging skills in telepractice. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Our findings highlight a need to teach telepractice pedagogy explicitly and support students practically in learning how to provide therapy effectively via this mode of service delivery. Observational methods for studying practices in recorded telepractice sessions can be used as part of a reflective approach to clinical training. Using already available data allowed us to unpack the 'messy reality' of clinical training using telepractice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic has brought about disruptions in healthcare for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. There is a need to explore ways to promote proactive healthcare and better prepare individuals for healthcare encounters. Methods: A co‐designed tool, the COVID Check‐in Tool, was introduced as part of a virtual health education programme to encourage proactive healthcare. Implementation of this Health Check‐in was evaluated with 36 adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and 96 family caregivers who completed the programme using surveys, structured interviews and focus groups. Findings: Forty‐four percent of participants engaged in the Health Check‐in process, resulting in many reported benefits for those who participated. However, there were also barriers to initiating the Check‐in, along with challenges using the COVID Check‐in Tool, according to both the adults with disabilities who were interviewed and the family caregivers. Conclusions: The study underscores the importance of considering ways to integrate tools into routine healthcare practices, to facilitate improved healthcare delivery for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities during pandemic recovery efforts. As well, involving people with lived experience in the development and implementation of healthcare resources is critical. Accessible Summary: Our team worked together to make a tool that would help people with intellectual and developmental disabilities talk to their doctor about health problems after not seeing them a lot because of the pandemic. We called this tool the 'COVID Check‐in'.Then people from our team taught online health courses about how to use the COVID Check‐in Tool and other health topics.After the courses were over, we asked 36 adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and 96 family caregivers if they had a Health Check‐in with their doctor and how it went, or what problems they had with it.Almost half of the people who took the courses had a Health Check‐in and most of the people thought it was helpful. Some people did not do it or did it but had problems with it.We end the paper with some ideas of how to make it easier to check in with the doctor and why it is important to include people with disabilities and family caregivers when making healthcare tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this research was to understand counsellors' and therapists' perceptions and experiences of working online during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Method: Five hundred and ninety clinicians, mostly UK‐based, responded to an online qualitative survey, which allowed data to be gathered from a broader range of participants than is typical for qualitative interviews or focus group studies, and provided a wide‐angle lens. The survey generated over 130,000 words, on which a five‐staged framework analysis was conducted. Seven superordinate themes were identified. Results: In this paper, three of these superordinate themes specifically addressing online therapeutic practice with individual adult clients are presented. Therapists' accounts addressed the diverse ways in which the online space changed how they thought about the therapy relationship and their interactions with clients. Respondents described instances where online therapy had been beneficial for facilitating and cultivating the therapeutic process and relationship as well as how online therapy could have a potentially disruptive impact on therapeutic practice. Implications: For practitioners who continue to deliver therapy solely online and/or offer hybrid services, this study identifies the specific knowledge and skills required for effective and safe online therapeutic work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The adoption of remote healthcare methods has been accelerated by the COVID‐19 pandemic, but evidence suggests that some patients need additional support to engage remotely, potentially increasing health disparities if needs are not met. This study of COVID‐19 remote home monitoring services across England explores experiences of and engagement with the service across different patient groups. Methods: This was a mixed‐methods study with survey and interview data collected from 28 services across England between February and June 2021. Surveys were conducted with staff and patients and carers receiving the service. Interviews with staff service leads, patients and carers were conducted in 17 sites. Quantitative data were analysed using univariate and multivariate methods, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings: Survey responses were received from 292 staff and 1069 patients and carers. Twenty‐three staff service leads, 59 patients and 3 carers were interviewed. Many service leads reported that they had considered inclusivity when adapting the service for their local population; strategies included widening the eligibility criteria, prioritising vulnerable groups and creating referral pathways. However, disparities were reported across patient groups in their experiences and engagement. Older patients reported the service to be less helpful (p = 0.004), were more likely to report a problem (p < 0.001) and had more difficulty in understanding information (p = 0.005). Health status (p = 0.004), ethnicity (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001) and employment (p = 0.007) were associated with differential engagement with monitoring, and minority ethnic groups reported more difficulty understanding service information (p = 0.001). Qualitative data found illness severity to be an important factor in the support required, and patients' living situation and social network affected whether they found the service reassuring. Conclusion: Addressing health disparities must be a key focus in the design and delivery of remote care. Services should be tailored to match the needs of their local population, encourage access through collaboration and referral pathways with other services and monitor their inclusiveness. Involving patients and staff in service design can illuminate the diversity of patients' needs and experiences of care. Patient or Public Contribution: The study team met with service user and public members of the BRACE PPI group and patient representatives from RSET in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools, data interpretation and dissemination activities. Study documents (such as consent forms, topic guides, surveys and information sheets) were reviewed by PPI members; patient surveys and interview guides were piloted, and members also commented on the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To review the application of telehealth guidelines developed by Bondini et al for clinicians to determine patient suitability for telehealth in an outpatient Chronic Wound Service, including the proportion of patients suitable for telehealth, type and mode of telehealth encounters. Retrospective, random convenience sample of patients attending the Chronic Wound Service in 2021. Fifty‐six patients were included, most with leg/foot wounds (93%), median age 74 [54–84], 64% male. Four patients at admission and 19 patients at review met criteria for telehealth. Six percent of encounters were telehealth; phone‐only (82%), unscheduled nursing reviews (77%) in patients with healing wounds. Thirty patients (54%) received at least one telehealth encounter. Telehealth occurred 35.6 days later in the admission than face‐to‐face encounters (p < 0.05, 95% CI 14.9–56.3). There was a significant relationship between patients receiving telehealth and meeting telehealth suitability criteria on reviews (X2 (1) = 19.6*, p < 0.001). Eighteen percent of patients required wound‐related hospitalisation during their outpatient admission. Telehealth guidelines identified patients suitable for telehealth, although the proportion of patients was small. Telehealth was mostly utilised for nurse‐led telephone calls in patients with improving wounds. Future research into use of telephone review for clinical standards of wound care is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]