The Emerging New Reality of Hypnosis Teletherapy: A Major New Mode of Delivery of Hypnotherapy and Clinical Hypnosis Training.

Remote hypnotherapy is a treatment that is increasingly being utilized internationally. Its adoption has been accelerated following the COVID-19 pandemic when infection control measures mandated its implementation. Remote hypnotherapy via video, rather than telephone therapy, appears to be more popular and effective, which appears to be acceptable to patients and - compared to face-to-face therapy - has the potential to improve access. In this state-of-the-art article, the authors therefore review the latest literature in this exciting field of remote teletherapy, discussing adoption of video hypnotherapy; its evidence, including efficacy compared to face-to-face therapy; patient satisfaction; advantages and disadvantages of teletherapy; as well as practical considerations and factors that should be considered when deciding on the mode of delivery. They also discuss training implications of the recent developments. Finally, they highlight areas for future research and development. Overall, it is likely that remote hypnotherapy via video platforms is here to stay long term and has potential to become the standard form of therapy worldwide. However, recent data suggest that there may still be a need for face-to-face therapy with patient choice being an important factor.

Patient satisfaction after remotely delivered gut-directed hypnotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome during the COVID-19 era: implications for future practice.

OBJECTIVE: Gut-directed hypnotherapy (GDH) is an evidence-based treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Adoption of remote GDH has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate patient experience and satisfaction following remote GDH. DESIGN: On completing 12 sessions of remote GDH via Skype using the Manchester protocol, patients with refractory IBS completed a feedback form on their experience. The proportion reporting positive outcomes (≥30% improvement in global IBS symptoms or abdominal pain, satisfaction, recommendation to family/friends) were compared by patient factors (age, gender, proximity, preferences). RESULTS: Of 52 patients completing the feedback form, 27 (52%) indicated that they would have opted for remote over face-to-face GDH, regardless of the pandemic situation. On a five-point scale (5=easy), patients rated the platform easy-to-use (mean 4.5±0.8) without impairment of communication (mean rating 4.6±0.8). Following remote GDH, 30/52 (58%) reported ≥30% global IBS symptom improvement, and 24/52 (46%) reported ≥30% pain reduction. 90% would recommend remote GDH to others. Only 39% felt they would have benefitted more from face to face. Those who would have chosen remote GDH regardless of the pandemic were more likely to be satisfied (p=0.01). Age, gender and proximity did not influence outcomes, satisfaction and likelihood of recommending remote GDH to others. Difficulties during remote sessions were infrequent in both those that were satisfied, and those that would have preferred face to face. CONCLUSION: These data support the need to continue developing remote GDH in the post-COVID era but suggest that there is still a role for face-to-face GDH, with patient choice being an important factor.

The symptom burden of Irritable Bowel Syndrome in tertiary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused unprecedented disruption to healthcare services worldwide with well-documented detrimental effects on mental health. Patients with refractory disorders of gut-brain interaction such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) seen in tertiary care tend to exhibit higher levels of psychological comorbidity, but the impact of the pandemic on IBS symptom severity in tertiary care is unknown. METHODS: As part of routine clinical care, consecutive tertiary referrals with refractory IBS patients prospectively completed a series of baseline questionnaires including IBS symptom severity score (IBS-SSS), non-colonic symptom score, Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD), and Illness impact scores. The symptom severity questionnaire data were compared for consecutive patients seen in tertiary care 12 months before and after the onset of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. KEY RESULTS: Of 190 consecutive tertiary referrals with IBS, those seen during the pandemic had greater IBS severity (IBS-SSS: 352 vs. 318, p = 0.03), more severe extra-intestinal symptoms (non-colonic score: 269 vs. 225, p = 0.03), sleep difficulties (p = 0.03), helplessness and loss of control (p = 0.02), but similar HAD-Anxiety (p = 0.96) and HAD-Depression (p = 0.84) scores. During the pandemic, unmarried patients (p = 0.03), and keyworkers (p = 0.0038) had greater IBS severity. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: This study has shown for the first time that patients seen in tertiary care with refractory IBS during the COVID-19 pandemic had a significantly higher symptom burden emphasizing the importance of gut-brain axis in IBS. Furthermore, lack of support and perceived loss of control appear to be contributory factors.

Evaluating the impact of an enhanced triage process on the performance and diagnostic yield of oesophageal physiology studies post COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted on the provision of oesophageal physiology investigations. During the recovery phase, triaging tools were empirically recommended by national bodies for prioritisation of referrals amidst rising waiting lists and reduced capacity. We evaluated the performance of an enhanced triage process (ETP) consisting of telephone triage combined with the hierarchical 'traffic light system' recommended in the UK for prioritising oesophageal physiology referrals. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study of patients referred for oesophageal physiology studies at a tertiary centre, data were compared between patients who underwent oesophageal physiology studies 6 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and those who were investigated within 6 months after service resumption with implementation of the ETP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Adjusted time from referral to investigation; non-attendance rates; the detection of Chicago Classification (CC) oesophageal motility disorders on oesophageal manometry and severity of acid reflux on 24 hours pH/impedance monitoring. RESULTS: Following service resumption, the ETP reduced non-attendance rates from 9.1% to 2.8% (p=0.021). Use of the 'traffic light system' identified a higher proportion of patients with CC oesophageal motility disorders in the 'amber' and 'red' triage categories, compared with the 'green' category (p=0.011). ETP also reduced the time to test for those who were subsequently found to have a major CC oesophageal motility diagnosis compared with those with minor CC disorders and normal motility (p=0.004). The ETP did not affect the yield or timing of acid reflux studies. CONCLUSION: ETPs can effectively prioritise patients with oesophageal motility disorders and may therefore have a role beyond the current pandemic.