PTCase ReportAmerican journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation2021

An Improvised Pulmonary Telerehabilitation Program for Postacute COVID-19 Patients Would Be Feasible and Acceptable in a Low-Resource Setting.

Fanuel Meckson Bickton, Enock Chisati, Jamie Rylance and 1 others

PMID 33395048

WHAT IT FOUND

One patient recovered from severe COVID-19 completed a 3-week WhatsApp-based pulmonary rehabilitation program in a low-resource setting.

His shortness of breath, fatigue, and health status scores all improved significantly, and he returned to work.

Key findings

01The patient’s dyspnea, health status impairment, and fatigue scores all fell by more than their thresholds for clinical significance after the 3-week program.

02The patient progressed from exercising in his confinement room to walking over 2500 m per day and returning to work by the third week.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This is a single case report, so it cannot prove that the treatment works for other patients or establish efficacy. The authors lacked standard guidelines and local evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation in postacute COVID-19. The program was improvised and not a formal comprehensive interdisciplinary intervention. The authors could not objectively monitor physiologic responses to exercise (heart rate, oxygen saturation) due to lack of equipment, relying instead on patient-reported subjective measures. The authors explicitly state that these initial observations require corroboration by more high-quality studies.

Declared interests

No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors or individuals in control of the content.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume this program is proven effective for your patients. This is a single case report describing one person's experience. It shows the program was feasible and acceptable for him, but it does not provide evidence that the treatment works for others or that it is safe without objective monitoring.

Read it on PubMed →