Benefits and challenges of telemedicine for heart failure consultations: a qualitative study.
Digital health
Heart failure
Qualitative
Remote consultation
Telemedicine
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Aug 2023
10 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
11
09
2022
accepted:
03
08
2023
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
11
8
2023
entrez:
10
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, heart failure (HF) disease management programmes were predominantly delivered in-person, with telemedicine being uncommon. Covid-19 resulted in a rapid shift to "remote-by-default" clinic appointments in many organisations. We evaluated clinician and patient experiences of teleconsultations for HF. From 16th March 2020, all HF appointments at a specialist centre in the UK were telemedicine-by-default through a mixture of telephone and video consultations, with rare in-person appointments. HF clinicians and patients with HF were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews about their experiences. A purposive sampling technique was used. Interviews were conducted using Microsoft Teams®, recorded and transcribed verbatim. Narrative data were explored by thematic analysis. Clinicians and patients were interviewed until themes saturated. Eight clinicians and eight patients with HF were interviewed before themes saturated. Five overarching themes emerged: 1) Time utilisation - telemedicine consultations saved patients time travelling to and waiting for appointments. Clinicians perceived them to be more efficient, but more administrative time was involved. 2) Clinical assessment - without physical examination, clinicians relied more on history, observations and test results; video calls were perceived as superior to telephone calls for remote assessment. Patients confident in self-monitoring tended to be more comfortable with telemedicine. 3) Communication and rapport - clinicians experienced difficulty establishing rapport with new patients by telephone, though video was better. Patients generally did not perceive that remote consultation affected their rapport with clinicians. 4) Technology - connection issues occasionally disrupted video consultations, but overall patients and clinicians found the technology easy to use. 5) Choice and flexibility - both patients and clinicians believed that the choice of modality should be situation-dependent. Telemedicine HF consultations were more convenient for patients, saved them time, and were generally acceptable to clinicians, but changed workflows, consultation dynamics, and how clinical assessment was performed. Telemedicine should be used alongside in-person appointments in a "hybrid" model tailored to individual patients and settings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, heart failure (HF) disease management programmes were predominantly delivered in-person, with telemedicine being uncommon. Covid-19 resulted in a rapid shift to "remote-by-default" clinic appointments in many organisations. We evaluated clinician and patient experiences of teleconsultations for HF.
METHODS
METHODS
From 16th March 2020, all HF appointments at a specialist centre in the UK were telemedicine-by-default through a mixture of telephone and video consultations, with rare in-person appointments. HF clinicians and patients with HF were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews about their experiences. A purposive sampling technique was used. Interviews were conducted using Microsoft Teams®, recorded and transcribed verbatim. Narrative data were explored by thematic analysis. Clinicians and patients were interviewed until themes saturated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eight clinicians and eight patients with HF were interviewed before themes saturated. Five overarching themes emerged: 1) Time utilisation - telemedicine consultations saved patients time travelling to and waiting for appointments. Clinicians perceived them to be more efficient, but more administrative time was involved. 2) Clinical assessment - without physical examination, clinicians relied more on history, observations and test results; video calls were perceived as superior to telephone calls for remote assessment. Patients confident in self-monitoring tended to be more comfortable with telemedicine. 3) Communication and rapport - clinicians experienced difficulty establishing rapport with new patients by telephone, though video was better. Patients generally did not perceive that remote consultation affected their rapport with clinicians. 4) Technology - connection issues occasionally disrupted video consultations, but overall patients and clinicians found the technology easy to use. 5) Choice and flexibility - both patients and clinicians believed that the choice of modality should be situation-dependent.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Telemedicine HF consultations were more convenient for patients, saved them time, and were generally acceptable to clinicians, but changed workflows, consultation dynamics, and how clinical assessment was performed. Telemedicine should be used alongside in-person appointments in a "hybrid" model tailored to individual patients and settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37563576
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09872-z
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09872-z
pmc: PMC10413528
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
847Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Aug 29;69(686):e586-e594
pubmed: 31160368
Med Educ. 2006 Apr;40(4):314-21
pubmed: 16573666
Ann Fam Med. 2017 May;15(3):225-229
pubmed: 28483887
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017 Jun 14;17(1):156
pubmed: 28615004
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Dec 13;21(1):269
pubmed: 33308161
Eur Heart J. 2021 Sep 21;42(36):3599-3726
pubmed: 34447992
BMJ. 2020 Oct 20;371:m3945
pubmed: 33082127
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
Fam Med Community Health. 2019 Mar 8;7(2):e000057
pubmed: 32148704
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul;26(11):1166-1177
pubmed: 30917695
J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 11;22(5):e18378
pubmed: 32391799
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Feb 20;22(2):e16694
pubmed: 32130133
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907
pubmed: 29937585
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2021 Mar;39(1):67-76
pubmed: 33650941