Service provider perceptions of telerehabilitation as an additional service delivery option within an Australian neurosurgical and orthopaedic physiotherapy screening clinic: A qualitative study. (December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cottrell, Michelle A.; Hill, Anne J.; O'Leary, Shaun P.; Raymer, Maree E.; Russell, Trevor G.
• Is Part Of: Musculoskeletal science and practice. Volume 32(2017)
• Page Start: 7
• Page End: 16
• Publication Date: 2017-12
• Subjects: Telehealth -- Orthopaedic -- Neurosurgical -- Qualitative -- Implementation; Manipulation (Therapeutics) -- Periodicals; Physical therapy -- Periodicals; Neuromuscular diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Musculoskeletal system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Manipulation (Therapeutics); Neuromuscular diseases -- Treatment; Physical therapy; Manipulation, Orthopedic; Musculoskeletal Diseases -- therapy; Neuromuscular Diseases -- therapy; Physical Therapy Modalities; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 615.82
• DOI: 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.07.008
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2468-8630

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The Neurosurgical & Orthopaedic Physiotherapy Screening Clinic and Multidisciplinary Service (N/OPSC&MDS) originated as a complementary, non-surgical pathway for patients referred to public neurosurgical and orthopaedic specialist services. Patient access to the N/OPSC&MDS could potentially be improved with the implementation of telerehabilitation as an additional method of service delivery. Objective: To evaluate service provider's views on (1) current barriers to patients' accessing N/OPSC & MD services, and (2) the implementation of telerehabilitation within the N/OPSC&MDS. Design: Qualitative descriptive study design. Methods: Healthcare providers (n = 26) were recruited from six N/OPSC&MD services located throughout Queensland, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore service providers' views with respect to existing barriers to patients accessing the N/OPSC&MDS, and if telerehabilitation could be feasibly adopted to address current barriers. Results: Template analysis resulted in six themes: (1) barriers to some patients' accessing current N/OPSC&MD services are complex & multifaceted; (2) telerehabilitation could improve patient access to appropriate management for their musculoskeletal condition; (3) telerehabilitation may have limitations when compared to face-to-face healthcare; (4) the delivery of telerehabilitation needs to be flexible; (5) perceived barriers, and (6) facilitators to the successful implementation of telerehabilitation within the N/OPSC&MDS. Conclusion: This study represents a critical step in determining the readiness of service providers for the implementation of telerehabilitation within the N/OPSC&MDS. Although cautious, service providers are overall accepting of the implementation of telerehabilitation, acknowledging that it could eliminate several current barriers, subsequently achieving more equitable access to the service. Highlights: Service provider opinions towards telerehabilitation for a MSK cohort were analysed. There are a myriad of barriers that currently prevent patients accessing appropriate healthcare. Telerehabilitation could improve patient access to appropriate management for their MSK condition. The delivery of telerehabilitation needs to be flexible and dependent on the patient's needs. Although cautious, service providers are accepting of the implementation of telerehabilitation.