RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring is used to supplement in-clinic follow-up for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) every 6-12 months. There is a need to optimize remote management for CIEDs because of the consistent increases in CIED implants over the past decade. The objective of this study was to investigate real and perceived barriers to the use of remote patient management strategies in Canada and to better understand how remote models of care can be optimized. METHODS: We surveyed 512 CIED patients and practitioners in 22 device clinics in Canada. RESULTS: Device clinic surveys highlighted significant variation and inconsistency in follow-up care for in-clinic and remote visits across and within clinics. This survey showed that funding policies and management of additional workflow are barriers to optimal use and uptake. Despite this, device clinics perceive remote follow-up as a valuable resource and an efficient way to manage patient follow-up. Patients were broadly satisfied with their CIED follow-up care but identified barriers related to coordination of care, visit logistics, and information needs. Views varied as a function of clinical or sociodemographic characteristics. Most patients (n = 228; 91%) expressed a desire to receive a phone call from their device clinic after a remote transmission has been received. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of a unified, guideline-supported approach to follow-up after CIED implant, and discrepant funding policies across jurisdictions, are significant barriers to the use of remote patient management strategies in Canada. Efforts to increase or expand use of remote follow-up must recognize these barriers and the needs of specific subgroups of patients.
INTRODUCTION: La télésurveillance sert de complément à la consultation en clinique des patients porteurs d'un dispositif cardiaque électronique implantable (DCEI) tous les 6 à 12 mois. Il est nécessaire d'optimiser la prise en charge à distance des patients porteurs de DCEI en raison de la constante augmentation des implantations de DCEI au cours de la dernière décennie. L'objectif de la présente étude était d'examiner les obstacles réels et perçus à l'utilisation des stratégies de prise en charge à distance des patients du Canada et de mieux comprendre la façon d'optimiser les modèles de soins à distance. MÉTHODES: Nous avons interrogé 512 patients porteurs de DCEI et praticiens de 22 cliniques spécialisées en DCEI du Canada. RÉSULTATS: Les enquêtes des cliniques spécialisées en DCEI ont fait ressortir la variation importante et le manque d'uniformité dans les soins de suivi lors des consultations en clinique et à distance au sein de toutes les cliniques et entre elles. Cette enquête a montré que les politiques de financement et la gestion du flux de travail supplémentaire sont les obstacles qui empêchent l'utilisation optimale et l'adoption. Malgré cela, les cliniques spécialisées en DCEI perçoivent le suivi à distance comme une ressource très utile et un moyen efficace de prendre en charge le suivi du patient. Les patients étaient dans l'ensemble satisfaits de leurs soins de suivi relatifs à leur DCEI, mais relevaient des obstacles liés à la coordination des soins, à la logistique des consultations et à leurs besoins d'information. Les points de vue variaient en fonction des caractéristiques cliniques et sociodémographiques. La plupart des patients (n = 228 ; 91 %) ont fait part de leur souhait de recevoir un appel téléphonique de leur clinique spécialisée en DCEI après la réception de la transmission à distance. CONCLUSIONS: L'absence d'une approche unifiée et fondée sur les lignes directrices qui porte sur le suivi après l'implantation de DCEI, et la divergence des politiques de financement des provinces et territoires sont des obstacles importants à l'utilisation de stratégies de prise en charge à distance des patients au Canada. Les efforts visant à accroître ou à étendre l'utilisation du suivi à distance doivent tenir compte de ces obstacles et des besoins des sous-groupes particuliers de patients.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To examine the issue of pain assessment in infants by acquiring all available published pain assessment tools and evaluating their reported reliability, validity, clinical utility, and feasibility. DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic integrative review of the literature was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE and CINAHL (through February 2004), and Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews (through 2003). MeSH headings searched included "pain measurement," with limit of "newborn infant"; "infant newborn"; and "pain perception." SUBJECTS: Thirty-five neonatal pain assessment tools were found and evaluated using predetermined criteria. The critique consisted of a structured comparison of the classification and dimensions measured. Further, the population tested and reports of reliability, validity, clinical utility, and feasibility were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 35 measures reviewed, 18 were unidimensional and 17 were multidimensional. Six of the multidimensional measures were published as abstracts only, were not published at all, or the original work could not be obtained. None of the existing instruments fulfilled all criteria for an ideal measure; many require further psychometric testing. CONCLUSIONS: When choosing a pain assessment tool, one must also consider the infant population and setting, and the type of pain experienced. The decision should be made after carefully considering the existing published options. Confidence that the instrument will assess pain in a reproducible way is essential, and must be demonstrated with validity and reliability testing. Using an untested instrument is not recommended, and should only occur within a research protocol, with appropriate ethics and parental approval. Because pain is a multidimensional phenomenon, well-tested multidimensional instruments may be preferable.
