Evaluation of Pragmatic Telehealth Physical Therapy Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This was a quality improvement study in a single outpatient physical therapy faculty practice, so the implementation strategies and themes may not fit other clinics. It did not compare clinical outcomes between telehealth and in-person care, and the authors state clinical effectiveness indicators were not available. The satisfaction survey was sent to 1153 patients and returned by 307, and complete results came from 270 patients. The authors state this had potential response bias toward patients who participated in telehealth and completed the survey. During the implementation phase, reached patients were more likely to be younger, English speaking, non-Hispanic White, commercially insured, and have fewer comorbidities than the 2019 comparison group, so it may not show access for patients with more barriers. The study compared 2020 implementation records with 2019 records during a pandemic, and the authors state the analysis was largely retrospective and limited by what could be queried from administrative records. Qualitative themes came from field notes, meetings, and interviews with 19 clinicians.

The named funding source was the National Institutes of Health, which supported Dr Miller's time. The authors state the funders played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting. No other conflicts of interest are reported.

Do not conclude that telehealth physical therapy is clinically effective or equivalent to in-person care. The study measured reach, satisfaction, safety, adoption, and implementation themes, and the authors state clinical effectiveness indicators were not available.