Can Remote Patient Monitoring Be the New Standard in Primary Care of Chronic Diseases, Post-COVID-19?

Impact effects of COVID-19 pandemic on chronic disease patients: A longitudinal prospective study

AIMS

To assess the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on clinical variables as part of the routine clinical monitoring of patients with chronic diseases in primary care.

DESIGN

A prospective longitudinal study was conducted in primary care centres of the Andalusian Health Service.

METHODS

Data were recorded before the pandemic (T1), during the declaration of the state of emergency (T2) and in the transition phase (T3). The Barthel index and the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ) were used to analyse functional and cognitive changes at the three time points. HbA1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, BMI and lipid levels were assessed as clinical variables. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric chi-square test were used for analysis. STROBE checklist was used for the preparation of this paper.

RESULTS

A total fo148 patients with chronic conditions were included in the analysis. Data analysis revealed in T2 only significant reductions in BMI, total levels of cholesterol and HDL during the onset of the pandemic. Barthel Index, SPMSQ, blood pressure and triglycerides and LDL levels worsened in T2, and the negative effects were maintained in T3. Compared to pre-pandemic values, HbA1c levels improved in T3, but HDL levels worsened.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 has drastically disrupted several functional, cognitive and biological variables. These results may be useful in identifying clinical parameters that deserve closer attention in the case of a new health crisis. Further studies are needed to assess the potential impacts of each specific chronic condition.

IMPACT

Cognitive and functional status, blood pressure and triglycerides and LDL levels worsen in short term, maintaining the negative effects in medium-term.

Navigating the doctor-patient-AI relationship - a mixed-methods study of physician attitudes toward artificial intelligence in primary care

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly advancing field that is beginning to enter the practice of medicine. Primary care is a cornerstone of medicine and deals with challenges such as physician shortage and burnout which impact patient care. AI and its application via digital health is increasingly presented as a possible solution. However, there is a scarcity of research focusing on primary care physician (PCP) attitudes toward AI. This study examines PCP views on AI in primary care. We explore its potential impact on topics pertinent to primary care such as the doctor-patient relationship and clinical workflow. By doing so, we aim to inform primary care stakeholders to encourage successful, equitable uptake of future AI tools. Our study is the first to our knowledge to explore PCP attitudes using specific primary care AI use cases rather than discussing AI in medicine in general terms.

METHODS

From June to August 2023, we conducted a survey among 47 primary care physicians affiliated with a large academic health system in Southern California. The survey quantified attitudes toward AI in general as well as concerning two specific AI use cases. Additionally, we conducted interviews with 15 survey respondents.

RESULTS

Our findings suggest that PCPs have largely positive views of AI. However, attitudes often hinged on the context of adoption. While some concerns reported by PCPs regarding AI in primary care focused on technology (accuracy, safety, bias), many focused on people-and-process factors (workflow, equity, reimbursement, doctor-patient relationship).

CONCLUSION

Our study offers nuanced insights into PCP attitudes towards AI in primary care and highlights the need for primary care stakeholder alignment on key issues raised by PCPs. AI initiatives that fail to address both the technological and people-and-process concerns raised by PCPs may struggle to make an impact.

Global Implications From the Rise and Recession of Telehealth in Aotearoa New Zealand Mental Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telehealth services for remote mental health care provision. Although studies indicate that telehealth can enhance the efficiency of service delivery and might be favored or even preferred by certain clients, its use varied after the pandemic. Once the pandemic-related restrictions eased, some regions curtailed their telehealth offerings, whereas others sustained them. Understanding the factors that influenced these decisions can offer valuable insights for evidence-based decision-making concerning the future of telehealth in mental health services.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the factors associated with the uptake of and retreat from telehealth across a multiregional outpatient mental health service in Aotearoa New Zealand. We aimed to contribute to the understanding of the factors influencing clinicians' use of telehealth services to inform policy and practice.

METHODS

Applying an interpretive description methodology, this sequential mixed methods study involved semistructured interviews with 33 mental health clinicians, followed by a time-series analysis of population-level quantitative data on clinician appointment activities before and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews were thematically analyzed, and select themes were reframed for quantitative testing. The time-series analysis was conducted using administrative data to explore the extent to which these data supported the themes. In total, 4,117,035 observations were analyzed between October 1, 2019, and August 1, 2022. The findings were then synthesized through the rereview of qualitative themes.

RESULTS

The rise and recession of telehealth in the study regions were related to 3 overarching themes: clinician preparedness and role suitability, population determinants, and service capability. Participants spoke about the importance of familiarity and training but noted differences between specialist roles. Quantitative data further suggested differences based on the form of telehealth services offered (eg, audiovisual or telephone). In addition, differences were noted based on age, gender, and ethnicity; however, clinicians recognized that effective telehealth use enabled clinicians' flexibility and client choice. In turn, clinicians spoke about system factors such as telehealth usability and digital exclusion that underpinned the daily functionality of telehealth.

CONCLUSIONS

For telehealth services to thrive when they are not required by circumstances such as pandemic, investment is needed in telehealth training for clinicians, digital infrastructure, and resources for mental health teams. The strength of this study lies in its use of population-level data and consideration of a telehealth service operating across a range of teams. In turn, these findings reflect the voice of a variety of mental health clinicians, including teams operating from within specific cultural perspectives.

Telehealth Services: Improving Equity in Pulmonary Health Outcomes

Expansion of telehealth services has the potential to attenuate health inequities in pulmonary medicine, by improving access to care and health outcomes in patients with lung disease. These telehealth services include remote patient monitoring, synchronous telemedicine, and remote pulmonary rehabilitation. Currently, patients who are White, well-educated, wealthy, and from urban areas are the most likely to benefit from telehealth services. Without clear policy decisions and planning to overcome the "Digital Divide," telehealth services will only exacerbate existing disparities within the pulmonary disease. We describe the benefits and limitations of these new technologies and their impact on improving equity in pulmonary medicine.

Digitally Based Blood Pressure Self-Monitoring Program That Promotes Hypertension Self-Management and Health Education Among Patients With Low-Income: Usability Study

BACKGROUND

According to evidence-based clinical guidelines, adults with hypertension are advised to self-monitor their blood pressure (BP) twice daily. Self-measured BP monitoring is a recommended strategy for improving hypertension management.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a digitally based BP self-monitoring program that promotes hypertension self-management and health education among low-income patients. We hypothesized that the program would be highly feasible and acceptable and that at least 50% of the patients would use the monitor at the rate required for the reimbursement of the device's cost (16 days of measurements in any 30-day period).

METHODS

Withings BPM Connect was deployed to patients at Family Health Centers of San Diego. Program elements included training, SMS text message reminders, and physician communication. Compliance, use, mean BP, and BP control status were calculated. A Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis was conducted to compare time to compliance between a strict definition (≥16 days in any rolling 30-day window) and a lenient definition (≥1 day per week for 4 consecutive weeks). A log-rank test was performed to determine whether the difference in time to compliance between the definitions was statistically significant. Mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) before the intervention and after the intervention and mean change in SBP and DBP across patients were calculated. Paired sample t tests (2-tailed) were performed to assess the changes in SBP and DBP from before to after the intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients received the monitors. The mean changes in SBP and DBP from before to after the intervention were +2.62 (SE 1.26) mm Hg and +3.31 (SE 0.71) mm Hg, respectively. There was a statistically significant increase in both SBP and DBP after the intervention compared with before the intervention (P=.04 and P<.001). At the first and last measurements, 37.5% (63/168) and 48.8% (82/168) of the patients had controlled BP, respectively. During the observation period, 83.3% (140/168) of the patients had at least 1 controlled BP measurement. Use decreased over time, with 53.6% (90/168) of the patients using their monitor at week 2 and only 25% (42/168) at week 11. Although only 25.6% (43/168) achieved the strict definition of compliance, 42.3% (71/168) achieved the lenient definition of compliance. The median time to compliance was 130 days for the strict definition and 95 days for the lenient definition. The log-rank test showed a statistically significant difference in time to compliance between the compliance definitions (P<.001). Only 26.8% (45/168) complied with the measurement rate that would result in device cost reimbursement.

CONCLUSIONS

Few patients used the monitors at a rate that would result in reimbursement, raising financial feasibility concerns. Plans for sustaining costs among low-income patients need to be further evaluated.

Cancer patients' perspectives on remote monitoring at home during the COVID-19 pandemic- a qualitative study in Norway

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an unprecedented demand for digital health technology solutions, such as remote monitoring. Previous research has focused on patients with chronic diseases, and their experiences with remote monitoring during the pandemic. Several recommendations have been presented to reduce the frequency of cancer patients’ visits to oncology centers and minimizing the risk of exposure to COVID-19, such as remote monitoring. However, few studies have explored how this has influenced the healthcare services to cancer patients.

Aim

To explore cancer patients’ perspectives on remote monitoring at home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

The study had a qualitative design, using in-depth, individual interviews.

Methods

A total of eleven interviews were conducted with patients who received remote monitoring during the COVID-19 outbreak. Three of the interviews were conducted by telephone, and eight on a digital platform, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatime. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis as recommended by Braun & Clarke.

Results

All participants were conscious about being vulnerable to infections due to having cancer and receiving cancer treatment, and the pandemic to them represented an extra burden. Most of the participants experienced that their healthcare services had changed due to the pandemic, but there was no consensus on how the services had changed. All of the participants presented remote monitoring as something «new». Whether they received remote monitoring by telephone, video consultations or more advanced solutions with the possibility to complete a questionnaire or fill in measurements, did not seem to impact their views. However, all agreed that remote monitoring could never totally replace physical consultations in hospital. Participants’ views seemed to grow more positive over time, but still they emphasized both positive and negative aspects of remote monitoring solutions in cancer care.

Conclusion

Remote monitoring was introduced as a necessity in cancer care during the COVID-19 outbreak. This may seem as an efficient solution, allowing for patients to stay at home and avoid infection. Our results indicate that, in the case of cancer patients, it is important that healthcare personnel balance the remote monitoring solution with person-to-person contact.

Healthcare Professional Perspectives on the Use of Remote Patient-Monitoring Platforms during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent need to act to reduce the spread of the virus and alleviate congestion in healthcare services, protect health professionals, and help them maintain satisfactory quality and safety of care. Remote monitoring platforms (RPM) emerged as potential solutions. In this study, we evaluate, from health professionals’ perspectives, the capacity and contribution of two different digital platforms to maintain quality, safety, and patient engagement in care. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a survey in which a total of 491 health professionals participated. The results show that, in general, user perceptions of the quality and safety of care provided through the platforms were positive. The ease of access to health professionals’ services in general and shorter waiting times for patients were the two main features that were highly appreciated by most participants. However, some problems were encountered during the use of these two platforms, such as a lack of training and/or direct support for users. To improve the two platforms and maximize their use, the areas for improvement and the issues identified should be addressed as part of a collaborative process involving health professionals and patients as well as health system leaders, decision-makers, and digital platform providers.