Barriers and Facilitators Associated With Remote Monitoring Adherence Among Veterans With Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Qualitative Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Background The Heart Rhythm Society strongly recommends remote monitoring (RM) of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) because of the clinical outcome benefits to patients. However, many patients do not adhere to RM and, thus, do not achieve these benefits. There has been limited study of patient-level barriers and facilitators to RM adherence; understanding patient perspectives is essential to developing solutions to improve adherence. Objective We sought to identify barriers and facilitators associated with adherence to RM among veterans with CIEDs followed by the Veterans Health Administration. Methods We interviewed 40 veterans with CIEDs regarding their experiences with RM. Veterans were stratified into 3 groups based on their adherence to scheduled RM transmissions over the past 2 years: 6 fully adherent (≥95%), 25 partially adherent (≥65% but <95%), and 9 nonadherent (<65%). As the focus was to understand challenges with RM adherence, partially adherent and nonadherent veterans were preferentially weighted for selection. Veterans were mailed a letter stating they would be called to understand their experiences and perspectives of RM and possible barriers, and then contacted beginning 1 week after the letter was mailed. Interviews were structured (some questions allowing for open-ended responses to dive deeper into themes) and focused on 4 predetermined domains: knowledge of RM, satisfaction with RM, reasons for nonadherence, and preferences for health care engagement. Results Of the 44 veterans contacted, 40 (91%) agreed to participate. The mean veteran age was 75.3 (SD 7.6) years, and 98% (39/40) were men. Veterans had been implanted with their current CIED for an average of 4.4 (SD 2.8) years. A total of 58% (23/40) of veterans recalled a discussion of home monitoring, and 45% (18/40) reported a good understanding of RM; however, when asked to describe RM, their understanding was sometimes incomplete or not correct. Among the 31 fully or partially adherent veterans, nearly all were satisfied with RM. Approximately one-third recalled ever being told the results of a remote transmission. Among partially or nonadherent veterans, only one-fourth reported being contacted by a Department of Veterans Affairs health care professional regarding not having sent a remote transmission; among those who had troubleshooted to ensure they could send remote transmissions, they often relied on the CIED manufacturer for help (this experience was nearly always positive). Most nonadherent veterans felt more comfortable engaging in RM if they received more information or education. Most veterans were interested in being notified of a successful remote transmission and learning the results of their remote transmissions. Conclusions Veterans with CIEDs often had limited knowledge about RM and did not recall being contacted about nonadherence. When they were contacted and troubleshooted, the experience was positive. These findings provide opportunities to optimize strategies for educating and engaging patients in RM.

Informational letters or postcards to initiate remote monitoring among veterans with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators: A randomized, controlled trial

“…Development was informed by prior interviews with veterans about barriers and facilitators to RM. 24 In addition to telling patients that they were not adherent to RM, in a total of four sentences, the postcard described RM, what it does, and that veterans can reduce frequency of in-person visits for pacemaker and ICD checks by participating in RM (Figure A1).…”