Objective The COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly evolving and has led to increased numbers of hospitalizations worldwide. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 experience a variety of symptoms, including fever, muscle pain, tiredness, cough, and difficulty breathing. Elderly people and those with underlying health conditions are considered to be more at risk of developing severe symptoms and have a higher risk of physical deconditioning during their hospital stay. Physical therapists have an important role in supporting hospitalized patients with COVID-19 but also need to be aware of challenges when treating these patients. In line with international initiatives, this article aims to provide guidance and detailed recommendations for hospital-based physical therapists managing patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through a national approach in the Netherlands. Methods A pragmatic approach was used. A working group conducted a purposive scan of the literature and drafted initial recommendations based on the knowledge of symptoms in patients with COVID-19, and current practice for physical therapist management for patients hospitalized with lung disease and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). An expert group of hospital-based physical therapists in the Netherlands provided feedback on the recommendations, which were finalized when consensus was reached among the members of the working group. Results The recommendations include safety recommendations, treatment recommendations, discharge recommendations, and staffing recommendations. Treatment recommendations address 2 phases of hospitalization: when patients are critically ill and admitted to the ICU, and when patients are severely ill and admitted to the COVID ward. Physical therapist management for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 comprises elements of respiratory support and active mobilization. Respiratory support includes breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, airway clearance techniques, and respiratory muscle strength training. Recommendations toward active mobilization include bed mobility activities, active range-of-motion exercises, active (−assisted) limb exercises, activities-of-daily-living training, transfer training, cycle ergometer, pre-gait exercises, and ambulation.

Background Studies on effectiveness and safety of specific spinal manual therapy (SMT) techniques in children, which distinguish between age groups, are lacking. Objective To conduct a systematic review of the evidence for effectiveness and harms of specific SMT techniques for infants, children and adolescents. Methods PubMed, Index to Chiropractic Literature, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched up to December 2017. Controlled studies, describing primary SMT treatment in infants (<1 year) and children/adolescents (1–18 years), were included to determine effectiveness. Controlled and observational studies and case reports were included to examine harms. One author screened titles and abstracts and two authors independently screened the full text of potentially eligible studies for inclusion. Two authors assessed risk of bias of included studies and quality of the body of evidence using the GRADE methodology. Data were described according to PRISMA guidelines and CONSORT and TIDieR checklists. If appropriate, random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Results Of the 1,236 identified studies, 26 studies were eligible. Infants and children/adolescents were treated for various (non-)musculoskeletal indications, hypothesized to be related to spinal joint dysfunction. Studies examining the same population, indication and treatment comparison were scarce. Due to very low quality evidence, it is uncertain whether gentle, low-velocity mobilizations reduce complaints in infants with colic or torticollis, and whether high-velocity, low-amplitude manipulations reduce complaints in children/adolescents with autism, asthma, nocturnal enuresis, headache or idiopathic scoliosis. Five case reports described severe harms after HVLA manipulations in four infants and one child. Mild, transient harms were reported after gentle spinal mobilizations in infants and children, and could be interpreted as side effect of treatment. Conclusions Based on GRADE methodology, we found the evidence was of very low quality; this prevented us from drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of specific SMT techniques in infants, children and adolescents. Outcomes in the included studies were mostly parent or patient-reported; studies did not report on intermediate outcomes to assess the effectiveness of SMT techniques in relation to the hypothesized spinal dysfunction. Severe harms were relatively scarce, poorly described and likely to be associated with underlying missed pathology. Gentle, low-velocity spinal mobilizations seem to be a safe treatment technique in infants, children and adolescents. We encourage future research to describe effectiveness and safety of specific SMT techniques instead of SMT as a general treatment approach.

NPs could also advice patients at cardiovascular risk by lifestyle counseling, to possibly reduce GP barriers.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the feasibility of a quality improvement programme aimed to enhance the client-centeredness, effectiveness and transparency of physiotherapy services by addressing three feasibility domains: (1) acceptability of the programme design, (2) appropriateness of the implementation strategy and (3) impact on quality improvement.DesignMixed methods study.Participants and setting64 physiotherapists working in primary care, organised in a network of communities of practice in the Netherlands.MethodsThe programme contained: (1) two cycles of online self-assessment and peer assessment (PA) of clinical performance using client records and video-recordings of client communication followed by face-to-face group discussions, and (2) clinical audit assessing organisational performance. Assessment was based on predefined performance indicators which could be scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Discussions addressed performance standards and scoring differences. All feasibility domains were evaluated qualitatively with two focus groups and 10 in-depth interviews. In addition, we evaluated the impact on quality improvement quantitatively by comparing self-assessment and PA scores in cycles 1 and 2.ResultsWe identified critical success features relevant to programme development and implementation, such as clarifying expectations at baseline, training in PA skills, prolonged engagement with video-assessment and competent group coaches. Self-reported impact on quality improvement included awareness of clinical and organisational performance, improved evidence-based practice and client-centeredness and increased motivation to self-direct quality improvement. Differences between self-scores and peer scores on performance indicators were not significant. Between cycles 1 and 2, scores for record keeping showed significant improvement, however not for client communication.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that bottom-up initiatives to improve healthcare quality can be effective. The results justify ongoing evaluation to inform nationwide implementation when the critical success features are addressed. Further research is necessary to explore the sustainability of the results and the impact on client outcomes in a full-scale study.