Efficacy of a web-based healthcare innovation to advance the quality of life and care of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ACQUIRE-ICD): a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Modern clinical management of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) largely consists of remote device monitoring, although a subset is at risk of mental health issues post-implantation. We compared a 12-month web-based intervention consisting of goal setting, monitoring of patients' mental health-with a psychological intervention if needed-psychoeducational support from a nurse, and an online patient forum, with usual care on participants' device acceptance 12 months after implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This national, multi-site, two-arm, non-blinded, randomized, controlled, superiority trial enrolled 478 first-time ICD recipients from all 6 implantation centres in Denmark. The primary endpoint was patient device acceptance measured by the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS; general score range = 0-100, with higher scores indicating higher device acceptance) 12 months after implantation. Secondary endpoints included symptoms of depression and anxiety. The primary endpoint of device acceptance was not different between groups at 12 months [B = -2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-5.62, 0.29), P = 0.08]. Furthermore, the secondary endpoint analyses showed no significant treatment effect on either depressive [B = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.19; 0.21), P = 0.17] or anxiety symptoms [B = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.96; 0.18), P = 0.18]. CONCLUSION: The web-based intervention as supplement to usual care did not improve patient device acceptance nor symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with usual care. This specific web-based intervention thus cannot be recommended as a standardized intervention in ICD patients.

Perceptions of person-centred care in two large university hospitals: A cross-sectional survey among healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred care (PCC) including collaborative practices is the core component of modern health care. Despite this, it has proven difficult to implement. AIMS: To examine (1) healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perception of whether they perceive a PCC culture, their attitudes towards involving patients in decisions and their experiences of barriers for PCC; and (2) variables that may contribute to explain differences in perceived person-centred culture. METHODS: A questionnaire survey of HCPs from 27 different departments from two university hospitals in Denmark. HCPs were eligible if they held a profession as physician, Registered Nurse, nurse assistant, physiotherapist, occupational therapist, dietician, midwife or psychologist and excluded if they reported not being involved in patient treatment and care. The questionnaire consisted of four items from the Context Assessment Index (CAI). The remaining items were purpose-designed. RESULTS: In total 1140 (24% response rate) HCPs completed the questionnaire and were included in the analyses. Most of the HCPs perceived a culture of PCC (e.g. 91% agreed or agreed to a high degree that patients were provided with opportunities to participate in decisions). Most HCPs also held positive attitudes towards involving patients in decisions. Time and prioritisation from the management were perceived as barriers for PCC, and many HCPs also believed that involving patients in decisions could be difficult for the patients. The HCPs who were least involved in treatment and care, and working in the acute setting or in surgery, were least likely to perceive a PCC culture. HCPs with the longest or shortest educations, and HCPs working primarily with outpatients or with planned inpatients, were most likely to perceive a person-centred culture. CONCLUSION: The HCPs generally perceived a culture of PCC and held positive attitudes towards involving patients in decisions. To further promote PCC, time and prioritisation must be invested at an organisational level.

A Personalized and Interactive Web-Based Health Care Innovation to Advance the Quality of Life and Care of Patients With Heart Failure (ACQUIRE-HF): A Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a progressive, debilitating, and complex disease, and due to an increasing incidence and prevalence, it represents a global health and economic problem. Hence, there is an urgent need to evaluate alternative care modalities to current practice to safeguard a high level of care for this growing population. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to examine the feasibility of engaging patients to use patient-centered and personalized tools coupled with a Web-based, shared care and interactive platform in order to empower and enable them to live a better life with their disease. METHODS: We used a mixed methods, single-center, pre-post design. Patients with HF and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (n=26) were recruited from the outpatient HF clinic at Odense University Hospital (Svendborg Hospital), Denmark, between October 2015 and March 2016. Patients were asked to monitor their health status via the platform using the standardized, disease-specific measure, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), and to register their weight. A subset of patients and nursing staff were interviewed after 3-month follow-up about their experiences with the platform. RESULTS: Overall, patients experienced improvement in patient-reported health status but deterioration in self-care behavior between baseline and 3-month follow-up. The mean score reflecting patient expectations toward use prior to start of the study was lower (16 [SD 5]) than their actual experiences with use of the platform (21 [SD 5]) after 3-month follow-up. Of all patients, 19 completed both a baseline and follow-up KCCQ. A total of 9 experienced deterioration in their health status (range from 3-34 points), while 10 experienced an improvement (range from 1-23 points). The qualitative data indicated that the majority of patients found the registration and monitoring on the platform useful. Both nursing staff and patients indicated that such monitoring could be a useful tool to engage and empower patients, in particular when patients are just diagnosed with HF. CONCLUSIONS: The use of patient tracking and monitoring of health status in HF using a standardized and validated measure seems feasible and may lead to insights that will help educate, empower, and engage patients more in their own disease management, although it is not suitable for all patients. Nursing staff found the patient-centered tool beneficial as a communication tool with patients but were more reticent with respect to using it as a replacement for the personal contact in the outpatient clinic.