Experiences with the implementation of remote monitoring in patients with COVID‐19: A qualitative study with patients and healthcare professionals. Issue 1 (27th September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Van Grootven, Bastiaan; Irusta, Lucia Alvarez; Christiaens, Wendy; Mistiaen, Patriek; De Meester, Christophe; Cornelis, Justien; Dierckx de Casterlé, Bernadette; Van Durme, Thérèse; van Achterberg, Theo
• Is Part Of: Journal of nursing scholarship. Volume 55:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: 67
• Page End: 78
• Publication Date: 2022-09-27
• Subjects: COVID‐19 -- e‐health -- focus group -- implementation -- interview -- remote patient monitoring -- telemonitoring; Nursing -- Periodicals; Nursing -- United States -- Periodicals; 610.73
• DOI: 10.1111/jnu.12814
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1527-6546

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: This study investigated how patients with COVID‐19, telemonitoring (TM) teams, general practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses in Belgium experienced remote patient monitoring (RPM) in 12 healthcare organizations, in relation to the patients' illness, health, and care needs, perceived quality of care, patient and health system outcomes, and implementation challenges. Design: A qualitative research approach was adopted, including focus group discussions and semi‐structured interviews. Methods: Four different groups of participants were interviewed, that is, patients ( n = 17), TM teams ( n = 27), GPs ( n = 16), and primary care nurses ( n = 12). An interview guide was drafted based on a literature review. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and NVivo was used for managing and analyzing the data. The QUAGOL method was used to guide the data analysis process and was adapted for the purpose of a thematic content analysis. Results: All participants agreed that RPM‐reassured patients. The overall perceived value of RPM for individual patients depended on how well the intervention matched with their needs. Patients who did not have the necessary language (Dutch/French speaking) and digital skills, who did not have the right equipment (smartphone or tablet), or who missed the necessary infrastructure (no internet coverage in their region) were often excluded. Remote patient monitoring also reassured healthcare professionals as it gave them information on a disease they had little knowledge about. Professionals involved in RPM experienced a high workload. All TM teams agreed that quality of data was a key factor to ensure an adequate follow‐up, but they differed in what they found important. The logistic management of RPM was a challenge because of the contagious character of COVID‐19, and the need for an effective information flow between the hospital team and primary care providers. Participants missed clarification about who was accountable for the care for patients in the projects. Primary care nurses and GPs missed access to RPM data. All agreed that the funding they received was not sufficient to cover all the costs associated with RPM. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals and patients perceive RPM as valuable and believe that the concept will have its place in the Belgium health system. However, current RPM practice is challenged by many barriers, and the sustainability of RPM implementation is low. Clinical relevance: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) was perceived as a valuable intervention for patients with COVID‐19, but there were important concerns about unequal access to care. While the technology for RPM is available, the sustainability of implementation is low because of concerns with data quality, challenging logistics within projects, lack of data integration and communication, and a lack of an overarching guiding framework.