A Pilot Study Examining Participants Psychosocial Health, Physical Activity and Staff Experiences: Is Adapted Home-based Phase 3 Cardiac Rehabilitation Feasible and Beneficial?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) causes 17.9 million deaths globally each year, an estimated 31% of all deaths worldwide. Individuals diagnosed with CVD (e.g., acute coronary syndrome) are typically referred to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) following acute treatment (e.g. percutaneous coronary intervention) to facilitate both physical and psychological recovery, as well as an absolute risk reduction in cardiovascular mortality.

The timescale of CR can be divided into 4 interlinked phases. Phase 1 is marked by admission to hospital and acute care (e.g., revascularisation). Phase 2 is considered as early rehabilitation following patient discharge, usually a period of 2-6 weeks home-based support (e.g., Heart Manual) depending on when a participant is considered fit enough to start a structured exercise programme. Phase 3 CR is a comprehensive outpatient programme, considered the core rehabilitation phase, in which participants receive structured exercise, health education, risk factor modification and psychological support. Upon discharge from clinically supervised phase 3 CR participants are generally signposted to long-term community based exercise classes (phase 4).

The current study will take place within a core phase 3 CR programme in the UK. According to the National Audit of CR, 75.4% of participants receive group-based supervised programmes, and only 8.8% of participants receive home-based services in the UK (BHF, 2019). Nevertheless, the environment in which CR is being delivered has dramatically changed in response to the COVID 19 pandemic. Staff have been redeployed to COVID units, limiting operative capabilities, and in some instances postponed rehabilitation. In the midst of this global crisis, The European Association of Preventive Cardiology recommended an increased patient turnover in CR, adoption of precautions during programmes (e.g., avoiding group exercises), shortening the programmes, and following participants with remote assessment. Despite the public health rationale for such measures, it is essential to consider the impact of adapted services on participant's psychosocial health and physical activity participation, and to consider staff experiences of adaptation 'on the fly' through remote working protocols.

An integral characteristic of group-based CR settings is a positive, supporting and inclusive climate that encourages participants to manage their emotions and illness perceptions to improve coping and recovery following a cardiac event . Currently, these interpersonal dynamics have dramatically altered with the shift to remote delivery of CR components (e.g., telephone, video, internet, and social media). Hence, some of the benefits of group and face to face rehabilitation have arguably been removed. In addition, participants are now having to cope with the added threat of catching COVID 19 and having to deal with some of the potentially distressing consequences of quarantine, such as post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion and anger. Therefore, the CR work force needs to be resilient and innovative to support participants throughout the pandemic with home-based programmes and telemedicine.

Fortunately, there is an evidence base to suggest that home-based programmes, such as the "Heart Manual", are as effective as centre-based CR in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes. Indeed, novel interventions, such as telehealth weight management, Rehabilitation EnAblement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF), and cardiac telerehabilitation interventions, such as REMOTE-CR, are effective alternatives to the 'gold standard' centre-based provision. However, these findings are typically based upon randomised controlled trials (RCT) and are rarely investigated within real-world clinical settings where the research to practice gap needs to be negotiated. Scaling up RCT's and implementing novel remote programmes into CR promptly and effectively during the current pandemic could be a challenging process impacted by attitudes towards change, resources available, expertise, time, and competing priorities. Hence, it is important to assess and understand the real-world patient outcomes (e.g., physical activity participation, psychosocial and physical health) and the complexity of employing adapted CR services during the Covid-19 pandemic, including the barriers and facilitators to such implementation.