The patient acceptability of a remotely delivered pain management programme for people with persistent musculoskeletal pain: A qualitative evaluation.

Introduction: Remotely delivered pain management programmes have been offered in place of in-person programmes by many chronic pain services since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a lack of evidence regarding the acceptability of these programmes. In this evaluation, we have explored patients' acceptability of a remotely delivered pain management programme for patients with persistent musculoskeletal pain. Methods: Qualitative data were collected using focus groups with participants who had previously attended the remote pain management programme. Data were analysed using abductive analysis. Results: Three focus groups were conducted with a total of 13 participants. The programmme was either entirely acceptable, had some acceptable components or was not acceptable to patients. Factors leading to the programme being acceptable include learning to manage pain from home, receiving high quality care from home, enhancing the potential of rehabilitation using technology, enabling attendance on a pain management programme from home, overcoming social distancing requirements of COVID-19 using technology, and virtual peer support. Factors leading to the programme not being acceptable include having an inappropriate home environment for virtual therapy, communication challenges with virtual therapy, technological issues and concerns regarding the quality of care. Conclusions: There is a spectrum of acceptability with respect to the remote programme. The factors that influence this are dynamic, individual and situational. Hybrid programmes have the potential to enhance access to pain management programmes and improve patient experience and programme outcomes in the future.

Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge in young adults.

Since its emergence in 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused hundreds of millions of cases and continues to circulate globally. To establish a novel SARS-CoV-2 human challenge model that enables controlled investigation of pathogenesis, correlates of protection and efficacy testing of forthcoming interventions, 36 volunteers aged 18-29 years without evidence of previous infection or vaccination were inoculated with 10 TCID50 of a wild-type virus (SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020) intranasally in an open-label, non-randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04865237 ; funder, UK Vaccine Taskforce). After inoculation, participants were housed in a high-containment quarantine unit, with 24-hour close medical monitoring and full access to higher-level clinical care. The study's primary objective was to identify an inoculum dose that induced well-tolerated infection in more than 50% of participants, with secondary objectives to assess virus and symptom kinetics during infection. All pre-specified primary and secondary objectives were met. Two participants were excluded from the per-protocol analysis owing to seroconversion between screening and inoculation, identified post hoc. Eighteen (~53%) participants became infected, with viral load (VL) rising steeply and peaking at ~5 days after inoculation. Virus was first detected in the throat but rose to significantly higher levels in the nose, peaking at ~8.87 log10 copies per milliliter (median, 95% confidence interval (8.41, 9.53)). Viable virus was recoverable from the nose up to ~10 days after inoculation, on average. There were no serious adverse events. Mild-to-moderate symptoms were reported by 16 (89%) infected participants, beginning 2-4 days after inoculation, whereas two (11%) participants remained asymptomatic (no reportable symptoms). Anosmia or dysosmia developed more slowly in 15 (83%) participants. No quantitative correlation was noted between VL and symptoms, with high VLs present even in asymptomatic infection. All infected individuals developed serum spike-specific IgG and neutralizing antibodies. Results from lateral flow tests were strongly associated with viable virus, and modeling showed that twice-weekly rapid antigen tests could diagnose infection before 70-80% of viable virus had been generated. Thus, with detailed characterization and safety analysis of this first SARS-CoV-2 human challenge study in young adults, viral kinetics over the course of primary infection with SARS-CoV-2 were established, with implications for public health recommendations and strategies to affect SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Future studies will identify the immune factors associated with protection in those participants who did not develop infection or symptoms and define the effect of prior immunity and viral variation on clinical outcome.

A qualitative investigation into the results of a discrete choice experiment and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for virtual consultations.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a qualitative investigation on a subset of participants from a previously completed Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to understand why factors identified from the DCE are important, how they influenced preference for virtual consultations (VC) and how COVID-19 has influenced preference for VC. METHODS: A quota sample was recruited from participants who participated in our DCE. We specifically targeted participants who were strongly in favour of face-to-face consultations (F2F - defined as choosing all or mostly F2F in the DCE) or strongly in favour of virtual consultations (VC - defined as choosing all or mostly VC consultations in the DCE) to elicit a range of views. Interviews were conducted via telephone or videoconference, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVIVO software. A directed content analysis of transcripts was undertaken in accordance with a coding framework based on the results of the DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on preference. RESULTS: Eight F2F and 5 VC participants were included. Shorter appointments were less 'worth' travelling in for than a longer appointment and rush hour travel had an effect on whether travelling was acceptable, particularly when patients experienced pain as a result of extended journeys. Socioeconomic factors such as cost of travel, paid time off work, access to equipment and support in its use was important. Physical examinations were preferable in the clinic whereas talking therapies were acceptable over VC. Several participants commented on how VC interferes with the patient-clinician relationship. VC during COVID-19 has provided patients with the opportunity to access their care virtually without the need for travel. For some, this was extremely positive. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigated the results of a previously completed DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for VC. Theoretically informative insights were gained to explain the results of the DCE. The use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic provided opportunities to access care without the need for face-to-face social interactions. Many felt that VC would become more commonplace after the pandemic, whereas others were keen to return to F2F consultations as much as possible. This qualitative study provides additional context to the results of a previously completed DCE.

Rapid design and implementation of a virtual pain management programme due to COVID-19: a quality improvement initiative.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the delivery of face-to-face pain services including pain management programmes in the United Kingdom with considerable negative impact on patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. We aimed to develop and implement a remotely delivered pain management programme (PMP) using video-conferencing technology that contains all the core components of a full programme: the 'virtual PMP' (vPMP). By reporting on the process of this development, we endeavour to help address the paucity of literature on the development of remote pain management programmes. Methods: The vPMP was developed by an inter-disciplinary group of professionals as a quality improvement (QI) project. The Model for Improvement Framework was employed with patient involvement at the design phase and at subsequent improvements. Improvement was measured qualitatively with frequent and repeated qualitative data collection leading to programme change. Quantitative patient demographic comparisons were made with a patient cohort who had been on a face-to-face PMP pathway. Results: Sixty-one patients on the PMP waiting list were contacted and 43 met the criteria for the programme. Fourteen patients participated in three vPMP cycles. Patient involvement and comprehensive stakeholder consultation were essential to a robust design for the first vPMP. Continued involvement of patient partners during the QI process led to rapid resolution of implementation problems. The most prominent issues that needed action were technical challenges including training needs, participant access to physical and technological resources, participant fatigue and concerns about adequate communication and peer support. Conclusion: This report demonstrates how a remotely delivered PMP, fully in line with national guidance, was rapidly developed and implemented in a hospital setting for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. We also discuss the relevance of our findings to the issues of cost, patient experience, patient preferences and inequities of access in delivering telerehabilitation for chronic pain.

What is the content of virtually delivered pain management programmes for people with persistent musculoskeletal pain? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Virtual consultations (VC) have been embraced by healthcare organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. VC allows continuation of patient care while adhering to government advised restrictions and social distancing measures. Multidisciplinary pain management programmes (PMPs) are a core element of many pain services and utilising virtual methods to deliver PMPs has allowed them to continue to provide care. This systematic review aimed to explore the content of existing virtually delivered PMPs and discuss if and how these findings can be used to guide clinical delivery. METHODS: Eligible studies included adults (aged ⩾18 years) with persistent musculoskeletal pain and any virtually delivered intervention that was described as a PMP or that had components of PMPs. Databases were searched from inception until July 2020. We performed a content analysis comparing existing interventions with established evidence-based clinical guidelines published by the British Pain Society (BPS). Intervention reporting quality was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist: an established checklist developed to improve the completeness of the reporting of interventions. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. One intervention included six of the seven components recommended by the BPS; none included all seven. 'Skills training and activity management' was present in all eight interventions; 'education' and 'cognitive therapy methods' were present in six interventions; 'graded activation' and 'methods to enhance acceptance, mindfulness and psychological flexibility' were present in four interventions; 'physical exercise' was present in two interventions and 'graded exposure' was present in one intervention. None of the studies described all 12 items of the TIDieR checklist adequately enough for replication. CONCLUSION: Published virtual PMPs partially meet established clinical guidelines. Future virtual PMPs should be based on evidence-based clinical guidelines, and more research is needed to explore the effectiveness of virtually delivered PMPs and each recommended component.

A mixed-methods survey to explore issues with virtual consultations for musculoskeletal care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To explore orthopaedic and musculoskeletal clinicians' views and experiences of legal, safety, safeguarding and security issues regarding the use of virtual consultations (VC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A secondary objective was to suggest ways to overcome these issues. METHODS: A mixed method cross-sectional survey was conducted, seeking the views and experiences of orthopaedic and musculoskeletal medically qualified and Allied Health Professionals in the United Kingdom. Descriptive statistical analysis was employed for quantitative data and a qualitative content analysis undertaken for qualitative data. Findings were presented in accordance with the four key issues. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety professionals (206 physiotherapists, 78 medically qualified professionals, 6 'other' therapists) participated in the survey. Of the 290 participants, 260 (90%) were not using VC prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 248 respondents (86%) were unsure whether their professional indemnity insurance covered VC, 136 (47%) had considered how they would handle an issue of safeguarding whilst the remainder had not, 126 (43%) had considered what they would do if, during a virtual consultation, a patient suffered an injury (e.g. bang on their head) or a fall (e.g. mechanical or a medical event like syncope) and 158 (54%) reported they felt the current technological solutions are secure in terms of patient data. Qualitative data provided additional context to support the quantitative findings such as validity of indemnification, accuracy of diagnosis and consent using VC, safeguarding issues; and security and sharing of data. Potential changes to practice have been proposed to address these issues. CONCLUSIONS: VC have been rapidly deployed since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic often without clear guidance or consensus on many important issues. This study identified legal, safeguarding, safety and security issues. There is an urgent need to address these and develop local and national guidance and frameworks to facilitate ongoing safe virtual orthopaedic practice beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Factors that influence patient preferences for virtual consultations in an orthopaedic rehabilitation setting: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, characterise and explain factors that influence patient preferences, from the perspective of patients and clinicians, for virtual consultations in an orthopaedic rehabilitation setting. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and abductive analysis. SETTING: A physiotherapy and occupational therapy department situated within a tertiary orthopaedic centre in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were receiving orthopaedic rehabilitation for a musculoskeletal problem. Occupational therapists, physiotherapists or therapy technicians involved in the delivery of orthopaedic rehabilitation for patients with a musculoskeletal problem. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients and 22 healthcare professionals were interviewed. The average interview length was 48 minutes. Four major factors were found to influence preference: the situation of care (the ways that patients understand and explain their clinical status, their treatment requirements and the care pathway), the expectations of care (influenced by a patients desire for contact, psychological status, previous care and perceived requirements), the demands on the patient (due to each patients respective social situation and the consequences of choice) and the capacity to allocate resources to care (these include financial, infrastructural, social and healthcare resources). CONCLUSION: This study has identified key factors that appear to influence patient preference for virtual consultations in orthopaedic rehabilitation. A conceptual model of these factors, derived from empirical data, has been developed highlighting how they combine and compete. A series of questions, based on these factors, have been developed to support identification of preferences in a clinical setting.

Rapid implementation of virtual clinics due to COVID-19: report and early evaluation of a quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak has placed the National Health Service under significant strain. Social distancing measures were introduced in the UK in March 2020 and virtual consultations (via telephone or video call) were identified as a potential alternative to face-to-face consultations at this time. LOCAL PROBLEM: The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (RNOH) sees on average 11 200 face-to-face consultations a month. On average 7% of these are delivered virtually via telephone. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, the RNOH set a target of reducing face-to-face consultations to 20% of all outpatient attendances. This report outlines a quality improvement initiative to rapidly implement virtual consultations at the RNOH. METHODS: The COVID-19 Action Team, a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals, was assembled to support the implementation of virtual clinics. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement approach to quality improvement was followed using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle. A process of enablement, process redesign, delivery support and evaluation were carried out, underpinned by Improvement principles. RESULTS: Following the target of 80% virtual consultations being set, 87% of consultations were delivered virtually during the first 6 weeks. Satisfaction scores were high for virtual consultations (90/100 for patients and 78/100 for clinicians); however, outside of the COVID-19 pandemic, video consultations would be preferred less than 50% of the time. Information to support the future redesign of outpatient services was collected. CONCLUSIONS: This report demonstrates that virtual consultations can be rapidly implemented in response to COVID-19 and that they are largely acceptable. Further initiatives are required to support clinically appropriate and acceptable virtual consultations beyond COVID-19. REGISTRATION: This project was submitted to the RNOH's Project Evaluation Panel and was classified as a service evaluation on 12 March 2020 (ref: SE20.09).