OBJECTIVE: To describe the effectiveness and risk management of remote rehabilitation for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. DESIGN: Single-centre, retrospective, observational study. PATIENTS: COVID-19 patients undergoing rehabilitation (24 April to 24 May 2020). METHODS: All COVID-19 inpatients undergoing rehabilitation in the general ward were assessed. Data were collected on age, sex, physical ability, rehabilitation modality (remote/direct), need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, degree of pneumonia, oxygen therapy from the start of rehabilitation, D-dimer and C-reactive protein levels, and rehabilitation-related complications. Activities of daily living were measured using the Barthel Index. RESULTS: Out of a total of 43 patients, 14 were initially provided with remote rehabilitation and 29 with direct rehabilitation. Four patients were switched from direct to remote rehabilitation during the study, thus at the end of the study there were 18 in the remote rehabilitation group and 25 in the direct rehabilitation group. Patients in remote rehabilitation were significantly younger than those in direct rehabilitation. Of 12 patients who required intubation, 3 were given remote rehabilitation. One extracorporeal membrane oxygenation survivor underwent direct rehabilitation. All patients on remote rehabilitation were discharged home or to a hotel. Twelve out of 29 patients were transferred to a rehabilitation hospital due to delayed recovery of activities of daily living. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Effective and safe remote rehabilitation was performed in 41.9% of COVID-19 patients in this study, which resulted in improved rehabilitation in COVID-19 zones.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the effectiveness and risk management of remote rehabilitation for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. DESIGN: Single-centre, retrospective, observational study. PATIENTS: COVID-19patients undergoing rehabilitation (24 April to 24 May 2020). METHODS: All COVID-19 inpatients undergoing rehabilitation in the general ward were assessed. Data were collected on age, sex, physical ability, rehabilitation modality (remote/direct), need for intubation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, degree of pneumonia, oxygen therapy from the start of rehabilitation, D-dimer and C-reactive protein levels, and rehabilitation-related complications. Activities of daily living were measured using the Barthel Index. RESULTS: Out of a total of 43 patients, 14 were initially provided with remote rehabilitation and 29 with direct rehabilitation. Four patients were switched from direct to remote rehabilitation during the study, thus at the end of the study there were 18 in the remote rehabilitation group and 25 in the direct rehabilitation group. Patients in remote rehabilitation were significantly younger than those in direct rehabilitation. Of 12 patients who required intubation, 3 were given remote rehabilitation. One extracorporeal membrane oxygenation survivor underwent direct rehabilitation. All patients on remote rehabilitation were discharged home or to a hotel. Twelve out of 29 patients were transferred to a rehabilitation hospital due to delayed recovery of activities of daily living. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Effective and safe remote rehabilitation was performed in 41.9% of COVID-19patients in this study, which resulted in improved rehabilitation in COVID-19 zones.
Entities:
Keywords:
coronavirus; early ambulation; infection; pulmonary embolism; rehabilitation; risk management