Patient satisfaction with telehealth vs in-person hand therapy: A retrospective review of results of an online satisfaction survey

Investigating patient satisfaction with a hand therapy telehealth service during COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient hand therapy services were restricted. The use of telehealth was adopted to continue to provide care to patients with hand injuries. This survey aims to investigate patient satisfaction with hand therapy delivered via telehealth in a NSW public tertiary referral metropolitan setting and explore whether this differs for specific hand injury/conditions and treatments offered.

METHODS

Patients using hand therapy services via telehealth between 28 June 2021 and 27 May 2022 responded to a bespoke electronic survey. Participants were grouped depending on their particular injury/condition and treatment received. Analysis was conducted using MS Excel, and correlations were determined by using Fisher's exact test.

COMMUNITY AND CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT

No consumers were involved in the study design or analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight of 262 patients responded to the survey (26% response rate). Overall results showed high patient satisfaction (n = 55, 81%) with hand therapy delivered via telehealth with most patients agreeing that telehealth should be offered going forward (n = 59, 87%). Benefits reported by patients included convenience, reduced travel time and parking issues, and time saving. Patients receiving therapy for 'finger thumb bony injury with K wires' demonstrated a statistically significant association of lower satisfaction with telehealth (n = 3, 43%, P = 0.02). Patients receiving wound care over telehealth were just as satisfied with their experience (n = 15, 82%) as overall results (n = 55, 81%).

CONCLUSION

The survey suggests that patients are satisfied with their experience of telehealth for hand therapy. Patients with finger thumb bony injuries with k wires may be less suitable for telehealth. Wound care appears to be well received over telehealth in a hand therapy population.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

There is little evidence to guide hand therapists in which conditions or injuries patients find can be managed well with telehealth. Patients who answered a survey about their experience with telehealth for their hand therapy management overall reported satisfaction with the experience. Some patients had undergone surgery for broken fingers and thumbs using wires to hold the bone together while it healed. These patients were less likely to find telehealth satisfactory for their hand therapy care. Most patients requiring wound care over telehealth found this satisfactory.

Investigation of the barriers to and functional outcomes of telerehabilitation in patients with hand injury

BACKGROUND

Telerehabilitation is an approach that is growing in importance and rapidly becoming more prevalent. However, the potential barriers to this approach and its effectiveness relative to face-to-face treatment still need to be determined.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the technology and access barriers, implementation and organizational challenges, and communication barriers faced by patients undergoing postoperative telerehabilitation after hand tendon repair surgery. It also aimed to investigate the effect of telerehabilitation on pain, kinesiophobia, and functional outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, open-label, nonrandomized comparative clinical study.

METHODS

The study was conducted with 44 patients who underwent tendon repair surgery due to tendon injuries of the extrinsic muscles of the hand. Participants were divided into two groups (face-to-face group and telerehabilitation group). All participants received three physiotherapy sessions per week for 8 weeks from their surgery (via video conference using mobile phones to the telerehabilitation group). An early passive motion protocol was applied for flexor tendon and zone 5-7 extensor tendon repairs. Mallet finger rehabilitation was performed for zone 2 extensor tendon repairs, while an early active short arc approach was used for zone 3-4 repairs. The telerehabilitation and face-to-face groups received the same treatment protocols three times a week. In the eighth week of treatment (in the 24th session), the Turkish version of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Injury Questionnaire (DASH-T) and Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia were administered to all patients. The telerehabilitation group also underwent a barrier questionnaire. A pretreatment assessment could not be conducted. The independent-sample t-test was used for DASH-T data, and the Mann-Whitney U-test was used for Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia to compare groups.

RESULTS

In the study, there were 24 participants (age: 31.58 ± 12.02 years) in the face-to-face group and 20 participants (age: 39.25 ± 12.72 years) in the telerehabilitation group. The two groups were similar in terms of DASH-T and pain (p = 0.103, effect size = 0.647, and p = 0.086, effect size = 0.652, respectively) in the 8 weeks. However, the telerehabilitation group had a higher fear of movement (p = 0.017, effect size = 3.265). The most common barriers to telerehabilitation practices were the fear of damaging the tendon repair and the need for help during the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We determined that face-to-face treatment in acute physiotherapy for patients who have undergone tendon repair may be more effective compared to telerehabilitation, as it appears to be less likely to induce kinesiophobia. However, in situations where face-to-face treatment is not possible (such as lockdown), telerehabilitation can also be preferred after at least one in-person session to teach and perform exercises.