Abstract: Methods: Nurses were recruited from the psychogeriatric and somatic ward of five nursing homes in the Netherlands, from September to December 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, semi-structured interviews were held with twenty nurses via Microsoft Teams. The intra-oral camera was demonstrated in an online video. The topic list was based on the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1985) and reviewed by an expert group. The topics include: the use of e-health; current oral health care; collaboration with oral-health professionals; nurses’ acceptance of the intra-oral camera and expected acceptance of nursing-home residents. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and was recorded. The data was transcribed verbatim in MaxQDA2020 and analyzed using the Grounded Theory approach. Results: In total twenty nurses were interviewed. The majority of respondents were willing to try the intraoral camera when implemented (n=18). Some nurses mentioned that lack of time could be an issue during implementation. Barriers that were mentioned included that nursing-home residents may not be able to keep their mouth open long enough for the examination or may bite on the camera (especially residents of the psychogeriatric) and therefore nurses expected that the camera cannot be applied in people with reduced cognition, like dementia. Conclusions: The Dutch nurses appear to be willing to try the intraoral camera when implemented. Future research has to determine whether the intra-oral camera can be applied in people with reduced cognition.
Background:Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telerehabilitation (TR) has been expanding to address the challenges and risks of in-person delivery. It is likely that a level of TR delivery will continue after the pandemic because of its advantages, such as reducing geographical barriers to service. Many pandemic-related TR initiatives were put in place quickly. Therefore, we have little understanding of current TR delivery, barriers and facilitators, and how therapists anticipate integrating TR into current practice. Knowing this information will allow the incorporation of competencies specifically related to the use and provision of TR into professional profiles and entry-to-practice education, thereby promoting high-quality TR care.Objective:This study aimed to obtain a descriptive overview of current TR practice among rehabilitation therapists in Canada and the Netherlands and identify perceived barriers to and facilitators of practice.Methods:A web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted with occupational, physical, and respiratory therapists and dietitians in Canada (in French and English) and the Netherlands (in Dutch and English) between November 2021 and March 2022. Recruitment was conducted through advertisements on social media platforms and email invitations facilitated by regulatory and professional bodies. The survey included demographic and practice setting information; whether respondents delivered TR, and if so, components of delivery; confidence and satisfaction ratings with delivery; and barriers to and facilitators of use. TR satisfaction and uptake were measured using the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire and modified Technology Acceptance Model. Data were first summarized descriptively, and then, comparisons were conducted between professions.Results:Overall, 723 survey responses were received, mostly from Canada (n=666, 92.1%) and occupational therapists (n=434, 60%). Only 28.1% (203/723) reported receiving specific training in TR, with 1.2% (9/723) indicating that it was part of their professional education. Approximately 19.5% (139/712) reported not using TR at all, whereas most participants (366/712, 51.4%) had been using this approach for 1 to 2 years. Services delivered were primarily teleconsultation and teletreatment with individuals. Respondents offering TR were moderately satisfied with their service delivery and found it to be effective; 90.1% (498/553) indicated that they were likely to continue offering TR after the pandemic. Technology access, confidence, and setup were rated the highest as facilitators, whereas technology issues and the clinical need for physical contact were the most common barriers.Conclusions:Professional practice and experience with TR were similar in both countries, suggesting the potential for common strategic approaches. The high prevalence of current practice and strong indicators of TR uptake suggest that therapists are likely to continue TR delivery after the pandemic; however, most therapists (461/712, 64.7%) felt ill prepared for practice, and the need to target TR competencies during professional and postprofessional education is critical. Future studies should explore best practice for preparatory and continuing education.
