ABSTRACT
Many eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapists moved their practice online during COVID-19. We conducted surveys and interviews to understand the implementation and acceptability of online EMDR therapy. From 17 June to 2nd August 2021 an online survey was open to EMDR therapists from the EMDR Association UK & Ireland and EMDR International Association email lists, and, through them, their clients. Questions related to determinants of implementation (for therapists) and acceptability (for clients) of online EMDR. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of therapist respondents to provide a deeper understanding of survey responses. Survey responses were received from therapists (n = 562) from five continents, and their clients (n = 148). 88% of clients responded as being extremely or very comfortable receiving EMDR therapy online. At the initial point of 'social distancing', 54% of therapists indicated strong or partial reluctance to deliver online EMDR therapy compared to 11% just over one year later. Four fifths of therapists intended to continue offering online therapy after restrictions were lifted. Free-text responses and interview data showed that deprivation and clinical severity could lead to exclusion from online EMDR. Internet connectivity could disrupt sessions, lead to cancellations, or affect the therapy process. Therapists benefited from training in online working. Online EMDR is generally acceptable to therapists and clients, with reservations about digital exclusion, case severity, poor internet connectivity and the need for training. Further research is needed to confirm that online EMDR is clinically non-inferior to in-person working. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40737-022-00260-0.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The WHO and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to compare the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19. METHODS: We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the UK. We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the WHO algorithm, National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65, CRB-65, Pandemic Modified Early Warning Score (PMEWS) and the swine flu adult hospital pathway (SFAHP). We used 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome. RESULTS: We analysed data from 20 891 adults, of whom 4611 (22.1%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2553 (12.2%) dying without organ support (secondary outcomes). C-statistics for the primary outcome were: CURB-65 0.75; CRB-65 0.70; PMEWS 0.77; NEWS2 (score) 0.77; NEWS2 (rule) 0.69; SFAHP (6-point rule) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point rule) 0.68; WHO algorithm 0.61. All triage tools showed worse prediction for receipt of organ support and better prediction for death without organ support. At the recommended threshold, PMEWS and the WHO criteria showed good sensitivity (0.97 and 0.95, respectively) at the expense of specificity (0.30 and 0.27, respectively). The NEWS2 score showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used. CONCLUSION: CURB-65, PMEWS and the NEWS2 score provide good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19, and predicted death without organ support better than receipt of organ support. PMEWS, the WHO criteria and NEWS2 (using a lower threshold than usually recommended) provide good sensitivity at the expense of specificity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN56149622.