No abstract

Background There is a paucity of evidence for the implementation of remote home monitoring for COVID-19 infection. The aims of this study were to identify the key characteristics of remote home monitoring models for COVID-19 infection, explore the experiences of staff implementing these models, understand the use of data for monitoring progress against outcomes, and document variability in staffing and resource allocation. Methods This was a multi-site mixed methods study conducted between July and August 2020 that combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyse the implementation and impact of remote home monitoring models developed during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. The study combined interviews ( n = 22) with staff delivering these models across eight sites in England with the collection and analysis of data on staffing models and resource allocation. Findings The models varied in relation to the healthcare settings and mechanisms used for patient triage, monitoring and escalation. Implementation was embedded in existing staff workloads and budgets. Good communication within clinical teams, culturally-appropriate information for patients/carers and the combination of multiple approaches for patient monitoring (app and paper-based) were considered facilitators in implementation. The mean cost per monitored patient varied from £400 to £553, depending on the model. Interpretation It is necessary to provide the means for evaluating the effectiveness of these models, for example, by establishing comparator data. Future research should also focus on the sustainability of the models and patient experience (considering the extent to which some of the models exacerbate existing inequalities in access to care).

Improving responsiveness to the needs of older people from minority ethnic communities has been emphasised as a goal in England since the publication of the National Service Framework for Older People in 2001. Despite this, people from minority ethnic groups consistently give poorer ratings of their health services than ‘majority’ populations, both in England and across many other health-care systems. Language barriers have been shown to play a particularly important role, and appear to be a stronger predictor of perceived quality of care than ethnic origin per se. This paper reports findings from a larger study exploring older people's experiences of care transitions, focusing on the findings from one case study area which explored the hospital and discharge experiences of older people from minority ethnic communities. A participatory approach was adopted, with older people from the local area collaborating in the design, delivery and analysis of the research as ‘co-researchers’. Twenty-four in-depth narrative interviews were carried out with people who had experienced a recent hospital stay as a patient or a family member providing care and support. Our findings show that many aspects of the hospital experience, including the desire for personalised and humanistic approaches to care, are important to older people irrespective of ethnic background. However, older people from minority ethnic communities can also face language and cultural barriers which negatively affect the quality and experience of care. People who had limited English proficiency struggled to understand, communicate and participate in their care. Where professional services were not available or requested, interpreting was provided informally by other patients, family members, hospital staff in clinical and domestic roles, or not at all. We conclude that targeted strategies are required to ensure appropriate and effective hospital services for a multicultural population.

Introduction: Remote 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.Methods: A rapid mixed-methods study was carried out in England (conducted from March to June 2021). We remotely conducted a cross-sectional survey and semistructured interviews with patients and carers. Interview findings were summarized using rapid assessment procedures sheets and data were grouped into themes (using thematic analysis). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics.Results: We received 1069 surveys (18% response rate) and conducted interviews with patients (n = 59) or their 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 (e.g., hesitancy to self-escalate care). 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.

No abstract

By the end of March every primary care trust in England should have commissioned a new health centre. Jo Ellins, Chris Ham, and Helen Parker examine the effect of this attempt to open up the market

Background: The 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. Methods: The 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. Findings: Many 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. Interpretation: Services 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.

ObjectiveThere is a paucity of evidence for the implementation of remote home monitoring for COVID-19 infection. The aims of this study were to: identify the key characteristics of remote home monitoring models for COVID-19 infection, explore the experiences of staff implementing these models, understand the use of data for monitoring progress against outcomes, and document variability in staffing and resource allocation.MethodsThis was a multi-site mixed methods study that combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyse the implementation and impact of remote home monitoring models during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (March to August 2020). The study combined interviews (n=22) with staff delivering these models across eight sites in England with the collection and analysis of data on staffing models and resource allocation.ResultsThe models varied in relation to the healthcare settings and mechanisms used for patient triage, monitoring and escalation. Implementation was embedded in existing staff workloads and budgets. Good communication within clinical teams, culturally-appropriate information for patients/carers and the combination of multiple approaches for patient monitoring (app and paper-based) were considered facilitators in implementation. The mean cost per monitored patient varied from £400 to £553, depending on the model.ConclusionsIt is necessary to provide the means for evaluating the effectiveness of these models, for example, by establishing comparator data. Future research should also focus on the sustainability of the models and patient experience (considering the extent to which some of the models exacerbate existing inequalities in access to care).STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDYThe study makes a contribution to existing evidence on remote home monitoring models by exploring the design and implementation of these models for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases.The study was carried out across eight remote home monitoring models implemented in England, capturing variability in the mechanisms used for triage, monitoring and escalation.Limited evidence was available to assess the effectiveness of the remote home monitoring models.No comparator data were available for the absence of remote home monitoring.The study was designed as a rapid evaluation and only captured experiences and processes of implementation in a convenience sample of eight models implemented during the first wave of the pandemic in England.