Background: Chest physiotherapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 has been poorly reported. Although recommendations were published to guide physiotherapists, practice might have differed depending on education and training.
Objective: To analyze the differences in chest physiotherapy applied for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between certified specialists and non-certified specialists.
Methods: An online questionnaire survey was developed for physiotherapists involved in the management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The questionnaire inquired about professional information and characteristics of physiotherapy practice.
Results: There were 485 respondents, yielding a completion rate of 76%. Of these, 61 were certified specialists and 424 non-certified specialists. The certified specialists were older, had more years of professional experience, were more qualified, and had better job conditions. For mechanically ventilated patients, the certified specialists used the ventilator hyperinflation maneuver more frequently (50.4% vs 35.1%, p = 0.005), and the hard/brief expiratory rib cage compression (ERCC) (26.9% vs 48.3%, p = 0.016), soft/long ERCC (25.2% vs 39.1%, p = 0.047), and manual chest compression-decompression (MCCD) maneuver (22.4% vs 35.6%, p = 0.001) less often. For spontaneously breathing patients, the certified specialists used the active cycle of breathing technique (30.8% vs 67.1%, p<0.001), autogenic drainage (7.7% vs 20.7%, p = 0.017), and MCCD maneuver (23.1% vs 41.4%, p = 0.018) less frequently.
Conclusions: Certified specialists with higher levels of expertise seem to prefer the use of chest physiotherapy techniques that are applied with the mechanical ventilator over manual techniques. Furthermore, they use techniques that could potentially increase the work of breathing less frequently, mitigating the risk of exacerbating respiratory conditions in patients with COVID-19.
Keywords: COVID-19; Critical illness; Hospitalization; Physiotherapy; Respiratory therapy; Survey.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.