BACKGROUND: Prior telemonitoring trials of blood pressure and blood glucose have shown improvements in blood pressure and glycemic targets. However, implementation of telemonitoring in primary care practices may not yield the same results as research trials with extra resources and rigid protocols. In this study we examined the process of implementing home telemonitoring of blood glucose and blood pressure for patients with diabetes in six primary care practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Grounded theory qualitative analysis was conducted in parallel with a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of home telemonitoring. Data included semistructured interviews with 6 nurse care coordinators and 12 physicians in six participating practices and field notes from exit interviews with 93 of 108 randomized patients. RESULTS: The three stakeholder groups (patients, nurse care coordinators, and physicians) exhibited some shared themes and some unique to the particular stakeholder group. Major themes were that practices should (1) understand the capabilities and limitations of the technology and the willingness of patient and physician stakeholders to use it, (2) understand the workflow, flow of information, and human factors needed to optimize use of the technology, (3) engage and prepare the physicians, and (4) involve the patient in the process. Although there was enthusiasm for a patient-centered medical home model that included between-visit telemonitoring, there was concern about the support and resources needed to provide this service to patients. CONCLUSIONS: As with many technology interventions, careful consideration of workflow and information flow will help enable effective implementations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Prior telemonitoring trials of blood pressure and blood glucose have shown improvements in blood pressure and glycemic targets. However, implementation of telemonitoring in primary care practices may not yield the same results as research trials with extra resources and rigid protocols. In this study we examined the process of implementing home telemonitoring of blood glucose and blood pressure for patients with diabetes in six primary care practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Grounded theory qualitative analysis was conducted in parallel with a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of home telemonitoring. Data included semistructured interviews with 6 nurse care coordinators and 12 physicians in six participating practices and field notes from exit interviews with 93 of 108 randomized patients. RESULTS: The three stakeholder groups (patients, nurse care coordinators, and physicians) exhibited some shared themes and some unique to the particular stakeholder group. Major themes were that practices should (1) understand the capabilities and limitations of the technology and the willingness of patient and physician stakeholders to use it, (2) understand the workflow, flow of information, and human factors needed to optimize use of the technology, (3) engage and prepare the physicians, and (4) involve the patient in the process. Although there was enthusiasm for a patient-centered medical home model that included between-visit telemonitoring, there was concern about the support and resources needed to provide this service to patients. CONCLUSIONS: As with many technology interventions, careful consideration of workflow and information flow will help enable effective implementations.
Authors: Bonnie J Wakefield; Richelle J Koopman; Lynn E Keplinger; Marilee Bomar; Beth Bernt; Jennifer L Johanning; Robin L Kruse; J Wade Davis; Douglas S Wakefield; David R Mehr Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Sarwat I Chaudhry; Jennifer A Mattera; Jeptha P Curtis; John A Spertus; Jeph Herrin; Zhenqiu Lin; Christopher O Phillips; Beth V Hodshon; Lawton S Cooper; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bonnie J Wakefield; John E Holman; Annette Ray; Melody Scherubel; Margaret R Adams; Stephen L Hillis; Gary E Rosenthal Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2011-04-10 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Roslyn A Stone; R Harsha Rao; Mary Ann Sevick; Chunrong Cheng; Linda J Hough; David S Macpherson; Carol M Franko; Rebecca A Anglin; D Scott Obrosky; Frederick R Derubertis Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Katherine Morton; Laura Dennison; Carl May; Elizabeth Murray; Paul Little; Richard J McManus; Lucy Yardley Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-10-20
Authors: Michelle M Alvarado; Hye-Chung Kum; Karla Gonzalez Coronado; Margaret J Foster; Pearl Ortega; Mark A Lawley Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Patricia Rodríguez-Fortúnez; Josep Franch-Nadal; José A Fornos-Pérez; Fernando Martínez-Martínez; Hector David de Paz; María Luisa Orera-Peña Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-06-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sebastiaan Theodorus Michaël Peek; Eveline J M Wouters; Katrien G Luijkx; Hubertus J M Vrijhoef Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Raj Padwal; Finlay Aleck McAlister; Peter William Wood; Pierre Boulanger; Miriam Fradette; Scott Klarenbach; Alun L Edwards; Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc; Kannayiram Alagiakrishnan; Doreen Rabi; Sumit Ranjan Majumdar Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2016-06-24
Authors: Janet Hanley; Peter Fairbrother; Lucy McCloughan; Claudia Pagliari; Mary Paterson; Hilary Pinnock; Aziz Sheikh; Sarah Wild; Brian McKinstry Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 2.692