Digital technologies in bronchiectasis physiotherapy services: a survey of patients and physiotherapists in a UK centre.

Introduction: We aimed to explore how digital technology is currently used, could be used and how services could be improved in order to optimise bronchiectasis physiotherapy care.
Methods: Online surveys were designed and distributed amongst people with bronchiectasis and physiotherapists in Northern Ireland. Responses to closed and open question formats were collected and analysed.
Results: The survey was completed by 48 out of 100 physiotherapists (48%) between January 2020 and January 2021 and by 205 out of 398 people with bronchiectasis (52%) between October 2020 and October 2021. 56% of physiotherapists (27 out of 48) reporting using some type of digital technology to facilitate services, whereas 44% (21 out of 48) reported that they had never used a digital technology in this patient group. When physiotherapists were asked whether they would be likely to use certain remote and/or digital options to deliver follow-up care for airway clearance techniques, most (31-38 out of 48; 65-79%) indicated that they would. Regarding patient responses, most reported that they would use telephone consultation (145 out of 199, 73%) and a smaller proportion were likely to use video consultation (64 out of 199, 32%). The most commonly mentioned theme for improvement amongst patients was follow-ups, while improved access, quality of services and treatments were the most commonly mentioned amongst physiotherapists.
Conclusion: Despite a large proportion of physiotherapists in this survey reporting no current use of digital technology in bronchiectasis physiotherapy care, there was significant interest and willingness to do so, amongst both physiotherapists and patients. This survey highlighted a range of care areas, specifically follow-up visits, where digital methods could be further explored.
Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: K. O'Neill has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: B. O'Neil has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R.H. McLeese has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.D. Chalmers reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Novartis and Insmed; and received consultancy or speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Insmed, Janssen, Novartis and Zambon, in the past 36 months; and is an associate editor of this journal. Conflict of interest: J. Boyd is an employee of the European Lung Foundation. Conflict of interest: A. De Soyza reports grants or contracts from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Gilead and Insmed, for work outside that presented in this article, with payment made to his institution; and a leadership or fiduciary role on the National Institute for Health Research HTA programme, in the past 36 months. Conflict of interest: P. McCallion has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.M. Bradley reports grants or contracts from Health and Social Care (Northern Ireland) and iABC (Polyphor and Alaxia), and using data analytics to design innovative clinical trials in respiratory disease, CLEAR, RECOVERY (RECOVERY-RS Respiratory Support), DIBS (Dual Bronchodilators in Bronchiectasis Study), ECFS-CTN, NI Clinical Research Facility, CLEAR 2, MARCH, Rejuvenating Rehab and PREPARE (Prehabilitation for Patients Awaiting Liver Transplantation), with all funding to her institution; and equipment for the Clear Trail study provided by Pari, in the past 36 months.
(Copyright ©The authors 2024.)