Outcomes With Individual Versus Group Physical Therapy for Treating Urinary Incontinence and Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Some But Not Too Much: Multiparticipant Therapy and Positive Patient Outcomes in Skilled Nursing Facilities

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Physical and occupational therapy practices in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) were greatly impacted by the 2019 Medicare Patient-Driven Payment Model (PDPM). Under the PDPM, the practice of multiparticipant therapy-treating more than one patient per therapy provider per session-increased in SNFs, but it is unknown how substituting multiparticipant therapy for individualized therapy may impact patient outcomes. This cross-sectional study establishes baseline relationships between multiparticipant therapy and patient outcomes using pre-PDPM data.

METHODS

We used Minimum Data Set assessments from all short-term Medicare fee-for-service SNF stays in 2018. Using generalized mixed-effects logistic regression adjusted for therapy volume and patient factors, we examined associations between the proportion of minutes of physical and occupational therapy that were received as multiparticipant sessions during the SNF stay and 2 outcomes: community discharge and functional improvement. Multiparticipant therapy minutes as a proportion of total therapy time were categorized as none, low (below the median of 5%), medium (median to <25%), and high (≥25%) to reflect the 25% multiparticipant therapy limit required by the PDPM.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We included 901 544 patients with complete data for functional improvement and 912 996 for the discharge outcome. Compared with patients receiving no multiparticipant therapy, adjusted models found small positive associations between low and medium multiparticipant therapy levels and outcomes. Patients receiving low levels of multiparticipant therapy had 14% higher odds of improving in function (95% CI 1.09-1.19) and 10% higher odds of community discharge (95% CI 1.05-1.15). Patients receiving medium levels of multiparticipant therapy had 18% higher odds of functional improvement (95% CI 1.13-1.24) and 44% higher odds of community discharge (95% CI 1.34-1.55). However, associations disappeared with high levels of multiparticipant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to the PDPM, providing up to 25% multiparticipant therapy was an efficient strategy for SNFs that may have also benefitted patients. As positive associations disappeared with high levels (≥25%) of multiparticipant therapy, it may be best to continue delivering the majority of therapy in SNFs as individualized treatment.

Predicting outcomes of conservative treatment for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: Group- and individual-based rehabilitation

Objective

To identify predicting factors of treatment outcomes of a two stage group-based and then individual-based intervention programme for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

Methods

A prospective cohort study where patients diagnosed with CTS were recruited from an out-patient occupational therapy clinic to join the two-stage CTS programme. The Stage-One programme consisted of splinting and educational talks in a group format, while the Stage-Two programme consisted of four weekly individual sessions providing psychosocial support, reinforcing correct ergonomics and mobilization. Baseline assessment on six potential predicting factors and four outcome measures was done for all patients. Patients were re-assessed at the end of the Stage-One and the Stage-Two programme. Analysis was done by binary logistic regression adjusted for baseline covariates.

Results

One hundred and sixty-six patients completed the Stage-One programme and 46 patients also completed the Stage-Two programme. Results showed that the Chinese Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) baseline score was the only significant predictor for the Stage-One programme outcomes (AUC for ROC was 0.708) with an optimum cut-off score of 23.5. On the other hand, the Chinese QuickDASH baseline score was the only significant predictor for the Stage-Two programme outcomes (AUC for ROC was 0.801) with an optimum cut-off score of 27.4.

Conclusions

The significant predictor for the Stage One Programme was the Chinese SSS baseline score and that for the Stage Two Programme was the Chinese QuickDASH baseline score. The optimum cut-off scores identified may be applied clinically to guide client-centered treatment planning.

Individual Versus Group Physical Therapy for Patients with Low Back Pain: Outcomes and Process (Therapeutic Factors)

Low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem usually treated individually, and requires costly physical therapy. Group treatment, besides being cost-effective, provides psychological support to the recovery of people who struggle with a physically disabling condition. The current study compares individual and group treatment of LBP, measuring differences in outcomes and process data (therapeutic factors). The study included 158 patients who participated in group (n = 71) and individual (n = 87) physical therapy, using a pre-post-follow-up design. Results indicated a significant improvement in all outcome measures at postintervention in both treatment settings, with no difference between them, which were sustained at follow-up. On a clinical level, a few differences were found: At postintervention, minimal clinically important improvement in perceived functioning and level of pain was greater among patients treated individually. On the other hand, at follow-up, only group participants gained additionally in perceived functioning and in fear avoidance. Therapeutic factors of other- versus self-focus and problem definition-change were more prevalent in group treatment.

Are wait lists inevitable in subacute ambulatory and community health services? A qualitative analysis

Objectives Wait lists are common in ambulatory and community-based services. The aim of the present study was to explore managers' perceptions of factors that contribute to wait times. Methods A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with managers and team leaders of ambulatory and community health services within a large health network. Interviews were transcribed and coded, and the codes were then grouped into themes and subthemes. Results Representatives from 26 services participated in the project. Four major themes were identified. Three themes related to reasons and factors contributing to increased wait time for services (inefficient intake and scheduling processes; service disruptions due to human resource issues; and high service demand). A fourth theme related to staff attitudes towards wait times and acceptance and acknowledgement of wait lists. Conclusions Service providers perceive high demand to be a key driver of wait times, but a range of other factors also contributes and may represent opportunities for improving access to care. These other factors include improving process efficiencies, greater consistency of service delivery through more efficient management of human resources and shifting to more consumer-centred approaches in measuring wait times in order to drive improvements in patient flow. What is known about the topic? Wait times are common in out-patient and ambulatory services. These services experience high demand, which is likely to continue to grow as health service delivery shifts from hospital to community settings. What does this paper add? Although demand is an important driver of wait times, there are other modifiable factors that also contribute, including process inefficiencies and service disruption related to human resource issues. An underlying staff attitude of acceptance of wait times appears to be an additional barrier to improving access. What are the implications for practitioners? The findings of the present study suggest that there are opportunities for improving access to ambulatory and community health services through more efficient use of existing resources. However, a more consumer-focused approach regarding acceptability of wait times is needed to help drive change.

Therapeutic Alliance in a Single Versus Group Rehabilitative Setting After Breast Cancer Surgery: Psychological Profile and Performance Rehabilitation

The survival rate of women after breast cancer has improved significantly worldwide. More attention should be paid to the rehabilitation intervention after surgery. Cancer rehabilitation helps breast cancer survivors maintain the highest possible physical, social, psychological, and vocational function in the limits that are imposed by the cancer and its treatments. The aim of our research was to determine the rehabilitative setting that promotes greater efficacy of the rehabilitation. A double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 45 patients enrolled was conducted. All participants were randomized into two groups: single rehabilitative training (N = 22) and group rehabilitative training (N = 23). Outcomes were assessed for each group before treatment (T0), after first 6 weeks of rehabilitative treatment (T1), and after 3 months (T2). All patients underwent the same rehabilitation treatment, but the setting differed between single and group rehabilitative training, which included four to five patients each and evaluated using Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), Working Alliance Inventory Patient form (WAIP), Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (DASH), and visual analog scale (VAS). Two patients dropped out in the single treatment group. In the within-group analysis at the three evaluation times, on the VAS, a significant reduction in pain was reported and maintained at the follow-up, as was observed for the DASH and WAIP scales. In the between-group analysis WAIP and Bond scale scores differed significantly in favor of the single treatment. In the group treatment, the Psychopathic Deviate, Masculine/Feminine, and Social Discomfort scales of the MMPI-2 correlated with WAIP Tot at T1. There was an association between the Correction, Hysteria, Paranoid, and Schizophrenia MMPI-2 scales and Δ VAS T0T1 in the total sample. Proposing the same rehabilitative intervention in both breast cancer groups, our results showed significant reduction in pain and good functional recovery of the upper limb, which did not depend on the setting (single or group). However, with single rehabilitation treatment, patients developed a better therapeutic alliance and experienced a more comfortable environment.

The effects of a high-intensity functional exercise group on clinical outcomes in hospitalised older adults: an assessor-blinded, randomised-controlled trial

Objective

to investigate a high-intensity functional exercise (HIFE) group in hospitalised older adults.

Design

assessor-blinded, randomised-controlled trial.

Setting

sub-acute wards at a metropolitan rehabilitation hospital.

Participants

older adults ≥65 years (n = 468) able to stand with minimum assistance or less from a chair and follow instructions.

Intervention

'group' participants were offered a standing HIFE group three times a week and individual physiotherapy sessions twice a week. Control participants were offered daily individual physiotherapy sessions.

Main outcome measures

the primary outcome measure was the Elderly Mobility Scale (EMS). Secondary measures included the Berg Balance Scale, gait speed, Timed Up and Go Test, falls, length of stay and discharge destination.

Results

participants' mean age was 84.3 (7.1) years and 61% were female. There was no difference between groups for the improvement in EMS from admission to discharge (effect size -0.07, 95% confidence interval: -0.26 to 0.11, P = 0.446) and no difference in discharge destination, P = 0.904. Therapists saved 31-205 min/week treating group participants compared with control participants.

Conclusion

the results suggest that a HIFE group programme combined with individual physiotherapy may improve mobility to a similar extent to individual physiotherapy alone in hospitalised older adults. Providing physiotherapy in a group setting resulted in increased therapist efficiency. A high-intensity exercise group with individual physiotherapy may be an effective and efficient method to provide care to older inpatients.

Group Versus Individual Physical Therapy for Veterans With Knee Osteoarthritis: Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Efficient approaches are needed for delivering nonpharmacological interventions for management of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

OBJECTIVE

This trial compared group-based versus individual physical therapy interventions for management of knee OA.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Three hundred twenty patients with knee OA at the VA Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, (mean age=60 years, 88% male, 58% nonwhite) were randomly assigned to receive either the group intervention (group physical therapy; six 1-hour sessions, typically 8 participants per group) or the individual intervention (individual physical therapy; two 1-hour sessions). Both programs included instruction in home exercise, joint protection techniques, and individual physical therapist evaluation. The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; range=0-96, higher scores indicate worse symptoms), measured at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. The secondary outcome measure was the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB; range=0-12, higher scores indicate better performance), measured at baseline and 12 weeks. Linear mixed models assessed the difference in WOMAC scores between arms.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, WOMAC scores were 2.7 points lower in the group physical therapy arm compared with the individual physical therapy arm (95% confidence interval [CI]=-5.9, 0.5; P=.10), indicating no between-group difference. At 24 weeks, WOMAC scores were 1.3 points lower in the group physical therapy arm compared with the individual physical therapy arm (95% CI=-4.6, 2.0; P=.44), indicating no significant between-group difference. At 12 weeks, SPPB scores were 0.1 points lower in the group physical therapy arm compared with the individual physical therapy arm (95% CI=-0.5, 0.2; P=.53), indicating no difference between groups.

LIMITATIONS

This study was conducted in one VA medical center. Outcome assessors were blinded, but participants and physical therapists were not blinded.

CONCLUSIONS

Group physical therapy was not more effective than individual physical therapy for primary and secondary study outcomes. Either group physical therapy or individual physical therapy may be a reasonable delivery model for health care systems to consider.