ABSTRACT
Despite numerous benefits, traditional Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) as a resource remains underutilized in chronic lung disease. Less than 3% of eligible candidates for PR attend one or more sessions after hospitalization due to many barriers, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging alternative models of PR delivery such as home-based PR, tele-rehabilitation, web-based PR, or hybrid models could help address these barriers. Numerous studies have tested the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of these methods, but there is wide variability across studies and methods. We conducted a literature review to help determine if these alternative delivery methods watered down the effectiveness of PR. To evaluate the effectiveness of remotely based PR, the authors performed a literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series using PubMed, CINAHL, and Medline to identify relevant articles through 1 May 2021. Twenty-six applicable studies were found in which 11 compared tele-rehabilitation to conventional clinic-based PR; 11 evaluated tele-rehabilitation using the patient's baseline status as control; and four compared tele-rehabilitation to no rehabilitation. Despite the different technologies used across studies, tele-rehabilitation was found to be both a feasible and an efficacious option for select patients with lung disease. Outcomes across these studies demonstrated similar benefits to traditional PR programs. Thus the existing data does not show that remotely based PR waters down the effectiveness of conventional PR. Use of remotely based PR is a feasible and effective option to deliver PR, especially for patients with significant barriers to conventional clinic-based PR. Additional, well-conducted RCTs are needed to answer the questions regarding its efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and who, among patients with COPD and other lung diseases, will derive the maximum benefit.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, internal medicine residencies have had to develop new teaching strategies and attend to wellness concerns. Providing front-line care for patients in a time of widespread crisis while maintaining attention to training has created unprecedented challenges. OBJECTIVE: Our large community hospital based internal medicine residency sought to develop and evaluate a crisis response to the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic to meet our residents' educational and wellness needs. METHODS: In March 2020, our residency developed a crisis plan for functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic. A brief survey was sent via email to our 149 residents to obtain their evaluation of how well their needs were being met by this response. RESULTS: 92 (62%) residents completed the survey. 88% indicated their well-being needs were well met. Other components were also rated as successful: effective communication (86%), scheduling/staffing (78%), preparing residents for clinical service (77%), and educational needs (76%). CONCLUSIONS: Our residency crisis response to the COVID-19 pandemic was favorably evaluated by our residents in meeting their training and well-being needs. In future work we plan to seek longer-term and more objective measures to assess how residents fare during these challenging times, and to use lessons learned to prepare for future crisis situations.