RESUMEN
BackgroundThe adoption of remote methods of care has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, but concerns exist relating to the potential impact on health disparities. This evaluation explores the implementation of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services across England, focussing on patients experiences and engagement with the service. MethodsThe study was a rapid, multi-site, mixed methods evaluation. Data were collected between January and June 2021. We conducted qualitative interviews with staff service leads, and patients and carers receiving the service. We conducted quantitative surveys with staff delivering the service, and patients and carers receiving the service across 28 sites in England, UK. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and quantitative data were analysed using univariate and multivariate methods. FindingsMany sites designed their service to be inclusive to the needs of their local population. Strategies included widening eligibility criteria, prioritising vulnerable groups, and creating referral pathways. Many sites also adapted their services according to patient needs, including providing information in different languages or more accessible formats, offering translation services, offering non-digital options, or providing face-to-face assessments. Despite these adaptions, disparities were reported across patient groups (e.g. age, health status, ethnicity, level of education) in their experience of and engagement with the service. InterpretationServices must determine how best to design and implement remote monitoring services to be of value to all populations. National guidance should play a role in supporting services to best serve the needs of their populations, and patients and staff must play an active role in service design. FundingThis is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme (RSET Project no. 16/138/17; BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and NHSEI. NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSEvidence shows COVID-19 has a disproportionate impact on certain population groups, such as ethnic minority groups, older adults and those with comorbidities. The rapid adoption and spread of remote home monitoring services in England must be accompanied by evaluations at a local level to monitor the impact on health disparities in local populations. Added value of this studyThis rapid mixed methods evaluation of COVID-19 home monitoring services adopted across 28 sites in England aimed to increase understanding of how services have been designed and delivered to address local population needs to increase accessibility to the service and facilitate engagement with the service. We add to the literature by identifying a range of local service adaptations which aim to increase reach and facilitate patient engagement, and consider their potential impact on health disparities. We found strategies included prioritising vulnerable groups, creating referral pathways, offering translation services, offering non-digital options, or providing face-to-face assessments. Despite efforts to adapt services to meet local needs, disparities across patient groups in their experience of, and engagement with, the service (related to age, health status, ethnicity, and level of education) were reported. Implications of the available evidenceAt both a national and local level, and particularly given the increasing use of remote home monitoring schemes, lessening health disparities must be a primary focus in the design and delivery of remote monitoring models for COVID-19 and other conditions. Future research should focus on how best to design and evaluate remote monitoring services, for a range of conditions, especially for patients residing in areas where significant health disparities persist, as well as addressing the effectiveness of any strategies on specific population groups.
RESUMEN
IntroductionRemote home monitoring models were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to shorten hospital length of stay, reduce unnecessary hospital admission, readmission and infection, and appropriately escalate care. Within these models, patients are asked to take and record readings and escalate care if advised. There is limited evidence on how patients and carers experience these services. This study aimed to evaluate patient experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring models for COVID-19. MethodsA rapid mixed-methods study in England. We conducted a cross-sectional survey and interviews with patients and carers. Interview findings were summarised using rapid assessment procedures sheets and grouping data into themes (using thematic analysis). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. ResultsWe received 1069 surveys (18% response rate) and conducted interviews with patients (n=59) and carers (n=3). Care relied on support from staff members, and family/friends. Patients and carers reported positive experiences and felt that the service and human contact reassured them and was easy to engage with. Yet, some patients and carers identified problems with engagement. Engagement was influenced by: patient factors such as health and knowledge, support from family/friends and staff, availability and ease-of-use of informational and material resources (e.g. equipment), and service factors. ConclusionRemote home monitoring models place responsibility on patients to self-manage symptoms in partnership with staff; yet many patients required support and preferred human contact (especially for identifying problems). Caring burden and experiences of those living alone, and barriers to engagement should be considered when designing and implementing remote home monitoring services. Patient or public contributionFor this evaluation, members of the study team met with service user and public members of the BRACE PPI group and Health and Care Panel and patient representatives from RSET in a series of workshops. These workshops informed study design, data collection tools, data interpretation and to discuss study dissemination for Phase 2. For example, patient facing documents, such as the consent form, topic guides, patient survey and patient information sheet were reviewed by this group. Additionally, PPI members helped to pilot patient surveys and interview guides with the research team. We also asked some members of the public to pilot the patient survey. Members of the PPI group were given the opportunity to comment on the manuscript. One PPI member commented on the manuscript and the manuscript was amended accordingly.
