Chelsea E Hawley1, Nicole Genovese2, Montgomery T Owsiany1, Laura K Triantafylidis2, Lauren R Moo3,4,5, Amy M Linsky6,7,8, Jennifer L Sullivan6,9, Julie M Paik1,10,11. 1. New England Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Pharmacy, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. New England Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. General Internal Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 9. Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 10. Renal Section, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 11. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify and address patient-perceived barriers to integrating home telehealth visits. DESIGN: We used an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design to conduct patient needs assessments, a home telehealth pilot, and formative evaluation of the pilot. SETTING: Veterans Affairs geriatrics-renal clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with scheduled clinic visits from October 2019 to April 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We conducted an in-person needs assessment and telephone postvisit interviews. RESULTS: Through 50 needs assessments, we identified patient-perceived barriers in interest, access to care, access to technology, and confidence. A total of 34 (68%) patients were interested in completing a home telehealth visit, but fewer (32 (64%)) had access to the necessary technology or were confident (21 (42%)) that they could participate. We categorized patients into four phenotypes based on their interest and capability to complete a home telehealth visit: interested and capable, interested and incapable, uninterested and capable, and uninterested and incapable. These phenotypes allowed us to create trainings to overcome patient-perceived barriers. We completed 32 home telehealth visits and 12 postvisit interviews. Our formative evaluation showed that our pilot was successful in addressing many patient-perceived barriers. All interviewees reported that the home telehealth visits improved their well-being. Home telehealth visits saved participants an average of 166 minutes of commute time. Five participants borrowed a device from a family member, and five visits were finished via telephone. All participants successfully completed a home telehealth visit. CONCLUSIONS: We identified patient-perceived barriers to home telehealth visits and classified patients into four phenotypes based on these barriers. Using principles of implementation science, our home telehealth pilot addressed these barriers, and all patients successfully completed a visit. Future study is needed to understand methods to deploy larger-scale efforts to integrate home telehealth visits into the care of older adults. Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify and address patient-perceived barriers to integrating home telehealth visits. DESIGN: We used an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design to conduct patient needs assessments, a home telehealth pilot, and formative evaluation of the pilot. SETTING: Veterans Affairs geriatrics-renal clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with scheduled clinic visits from October 2019 to April 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We conducted an in-person needs assessment and telephone postvisit interviews. RESULTS: Through 50 needs assessments, we identified patient-perceived barriers in interest, access to care, access to technology, and confidence. A total of 34 (68%) patients were interested in completing a home telehealth visit, but fewer (32 (64%)) had access to the necessary technology or were confident (21 (42%)) that they could participate. We categorized patients into four phenotypes based on their interest and capability to complete a home telehealth visit: interested and capable, interested and incapable, uninterested and capable, and uninterested and incapable. These phenotypes allowed us to create trainings to overcome patient-perceived barriers. We completed 32 home telehealth visits and 12 postvisit interviews. Our formative evaluation showed that our pilot was successful in addressing many patient-perceived barriers. All interviewees reported that the home telehealth visits improved their well-being. Home telehealth visits saved participants an average of 166 minutes of commute time. Five participants borrowed a device from a family member, and five visits were finished via telephone. All participants successfully completed a home telehealth visit. CONCLUSIONS: We identified patient-perceived barriers to home telehealth visits and classified patients into four phenotypes based on these barriers. Using principles of implementation science, our home telehealth pilot addressed these barriers, and all patients successfully completed a visit. Future study is needed to understand methods to deploy larger-scale efforts to integrate home telehealth visits into the care of older adults. Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; geriatrics; home telehealth; telehealth; virtual care
Authors: Jennifer N Hill; Sara M Locatelli; Barbara G Bokhour; Gemmae M Fix; Jeffrey Solomon; Nora Mueller; Sherri L LaVela Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2018-08-04
Authors: Samantha L Solimeo; Melissa J A Steffen; Ellen E Gardner; Omonyêlé Adjognon; Marlena H Shin; Jennifer Moye; Jennifer L Sullivan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Byron J Powell; Thomas J Waltz; Matthew J Chinman; Laura J Damschroder; Jeffrey L Smith; Monica M Matthieu; Enola K Proctor; JoAnn E Kirchner Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Cindie Slightam; Amy J Gregory; Jiaqi Hu; Josephine Jacobs; Tolessa Gurmessa; Rachel Kimerling; Daniel Blonigen; Donna M Zulman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Diane K King; Jo Ann Shoup; Marsha A Raebel; Courtney B Anderson; Nicole M Wagner; Debra P Ritzwoller; Bruce G Bender Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2020-03-03
Authors: Julia Loewenthal; Clark DuMontier; Lisa Cooper; Laura Frain; Louis S Waldman; Shoshana Streiter; Kristin Cardin; Samir Tulebaev; Houman Javedan; Ariela R Orkaby; Tammy Hshieh Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Alexander V Kalicki; Kate A Moody; Emily Franzosa; Peter M Gliatto; Katherine A Ornstein Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Elizabeth M Goldberg; Frances N Jiménez; Kevin Chen; Natalie M Davoodi; Melinda Li; Daniel H Strauss; Maria Zou; Kate Guthrie; Roland C Merchant Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 7.538