The gap between what patients know and desire to learn about their cardiac implantable electronic devices.
cardiac implantable electronic devices
patient engagement
survey
Journal
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE
ISSN: 1540-8159
Titre abrégé: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7803944
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
26
07
2019
revised:
06
11
2019
accepted:
25
11
2019
pubmed:
30
11
2019
medline:
23
2
2021
entrez:
30
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Advancement of digital technology now allows patients to have access to data from their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, patients' understanding regarding CIED data and perceived personal usability remain unclear. The present study is a prospective survey to examine patients' understanding of their CIEDs and their perception of what is important. We screened 400 patients between July and December 2018 who presented to our outpatient clinic for a CIED interrogation. Patients received a one-page questionnaire asking baseline demographics, their perception about their own knowledge about their device, and multiple-choice questions in seven basic categories: type of CIED, original indication, functionality, manufacturer, number of active leads, estimated battery life, and number of shocks received. We compared these answers to their interrogation reports to assess accuracy. We also asked participants what they would like to be aware of regarding their CIED. From this cohort, 344 of 400 (86%) (62.9 ± 12.8 years and 64 % males) agreed to take the survey and were included in the analysis. At baseline, 63.2% agreed or strongly agreed that they were knowledgeable about their devices. The overwhelming majority of patients demonstrated CIED knowledge deficits in at least one content area (n = 294, 86%), or more than two content areas (n = 176, 51%). Patients agreed or strongly agreed that they had a desire to have information regarding each of the following: battery life (84%), activity level (79%), heart rate trend (75%), and ventricular arrhythmias (74%). There is a large discrepancy in patients' level of knowledge regarding their CIEDs and their wish to know more details. Future technologies should satisfy providers' goals to educate their patients with basic information and fulfill patients' desire to obtain more data from their CIEDs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Advancement of digital technology now allows patients to have access to data from their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, patients' understanding regarding CIED data and perceived personal usability remain unclear. The present study is a prospective survey to examine patients' understanding of their CIEDs and their perception of what is important.
METHODS
We screened 400 patients between July and December 2018 who presented to our outpatient clinic for a CIED interrogation. Patients received a one-page questionnaire asking baseline demographics, their perception about their own knowledge about their device, and multiple-choice questions in seven basic categories: type of CIED, original indication, functionality, manufacturer, number of active leads, estimated battery life, and number of shocks received. We compared these answers to their interrogation reports to assess accuracy. We also asked participants what they would like to be aware of regarding their CIED.
RESULTS
From this cohort, 344 of 400 (86%) (62.9 ± 12.8 years and 64 % males) agreed to take the survey and were included in the analysis. At baseline, 63.2% agreed or strongly agreed that they were knowledgeable about their devices. The overwhelming majority of patients demonstrated CIED knowledge deficits in at least one content area (n = 294, 86%), or more than two content areas (n = 176, 51%). Patients agreed or strongly agreed that they had a desire to have information regarding each of the following: battery life (84%), activity level (79%), heart rate trend (75%), and ventricular arrhythmias (74%).
CONCLUSION
There is a large discrepancy in patients' level of knowledge regarding their CIEDs and their wish to know more details. Future technologies should satisfy providers' goals to educate their patients with basic information and fulfill patients' desire to obtain more data from their CIEDs.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
118-122Informations de copyright
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Zhan C, Baine WB, Sedrakyan A, Steiner C. Cardiac device implantation in the United States from 1997 through 2004: a population-based analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(Suppl 1):13-19.
Varma N, Michalski J, Stambler B, Pavri BB. Superiority of automatic remote monitoring compared with in-person evaluation for scheduled ICD follow-up in the TRUST trial-testing execution of the recommendations. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:1345-1352.
Tarakji KG, Vives CA, Patel AS, Fagan DH, Sims JJ, Varma N. Success of pacemaker remote monitoring using app-based technology: does patient age matter? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;41:1329-1335.
Nash IS. It's my heart: why not my data? Circulation. 2018;137:4-6.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377-381.
Haugaa KH, Potpara TS, Boveda S, et al. Patients' knowledge and attitudes regarding living with implantable electronic devices: results of a multicentre, multinational patient survey conducted by the European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace. 2018;20:386-391.
Ahmed R, Toscos T, Ghahari RR, et al. Visualization of cardiac implantable electronic device data for older adults using participatory design. Appl Clin Inform. 2019;10:707-718.
Mirro M, Daley C, Wagner S, Ghahari RR, Drouin M, Toscos T. Delivering remote monitoring data to patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: does medium matter? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;41:1526-1535.
Ghahari RR, Holden RJ, Flanagan ME, et al. Using cardiac implantable electronic device data to facilitate health decision making: a design study. Int J Indust Ergonom. 2018;64:143-154.
William AD, Kanbour M, Callahan T, et al. Assessing the accuracy of an automated atrial fibrillation detection algorithm using smartphone technology: the iREAD study. Heart Rhythm. 2018;15:1561-1565.
Bumgarner JM, Lambert CT, Hussein AA, et al. Smartwatch algorithm for automated detection of atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2381-2388.
Grover SA, Lowensteyn I, Joseph L, et al. Patient knowledge of coronary risk profile improves the effectiveness of dyslipidemia therapy: the CHECK-UP study-a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:2296-2303.