Bevilacqua M, Melnyk Y, Chiu H, Williams J, Watson P, Lee B, Dhariwal P, McGuire M, Wei J, Chohan R, Logie A, Fryer M, Stoll D, Levin A. Patient and Clinician Experiences With the Combination of Virtual and In-Person Chronic Kidney Disease Care Since the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Can J Kidney Health Dis 2023;
10:20543581231217833. [PMID:
38107157 PMCID:
PMC10722955 DOI:
10.1177/20543581231217833]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2023] [Accepted: 10/27/2023] [Indexed: 12/19/2023] Open
Abstract
Background
Following onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, chronic kidney disease (CKD) clinics in BC shifted from established methods of mostly in-person care delivery to virtual care (VC) and thereafter a hybrid of the two.
Objectives
To determine strengths, weaknesses, quality-of-care delivery, and key considerations associated with VC usage to inform optimal way(s) of integrating virtual and traditional methods of care delivery in multidisciplinary kidney clinics.
Design
Qualitative evaluation.
Setting
British Columbia, Canada.
Participants
Patients and health care providers associated with multidisciplinary kidney care clinics.
Methods
Development and delivery of semi-structured interviews of patients and health care providers.
Results
11 patients and/or caregivers and 12 health care providers participated in the interviews. Participants reported mixed experiences with VC usage. All participants foresaw a future where both VC and in-person care was offered. A reported benefit of VC was convenience for patients. Challenges identified with VC included difficulty establishing new therapeutic relationships, and variable of abilities of both patients and health care providers to engage and communicate in a virtual format. Participants noted a preference for in-person care for more complex situations. Four themes were identified as considerations when selecting between in-person and VC: person's nonmedical context, support available, clinical parameters and tasks to be completed, and clinic operations. Participants indicated that visit modality selection is an individualized and ongoing process involving the patient and their preferences which may change over time. Health care provider participants noted that new workflow challenges were created when using both VC and in-person care in the same clinic session.
Limitations
Limited sample size in the setting of one-on-one interviews and use of convenience sampling which may result in missing perspectives, including those already facing challenges accessing care who could potentially be most disadvantaged by implementation of VC.
Conclusions
A list of key considerations, aligned with quality care delivery was identified for health care providers and programs to consider as they continue to utilize VC and refine how best to use different visit modalities in different patient and clinical situations. Further work will be needed to validate these findings and evaluate clinical outcomes with the combination of virtual and traditional modes of care delivery.
Trial registration
Not registered.
Collapse