Clinical outcomes of a short-term family-focused intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation-A randomised clinical trial.

AIMS: To evaluate a family-focused intervention for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in addition to conventional care and to establish its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety, depression, AF symptoms, and family support. BACKGROUND: AF is a widespread heart disease affecting the well-being of patients and their family members physically and psychologically. Supporting patients and their family members could potentially facilitate regaining family strength and improve HRQoL. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed AF were randomised to standard care or additional family-focused intervention with change in global score of the Atrial Fibrillation Quality of Life Questionnaire (AFEQT) as primary outcome after six months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score, the European Heart Rhythm Association score, the Ice Expressive Family Functioning Questionnaire, and the Ice Family-Perceived Support Questionnaire (ICE-FPSQ). RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients received standard care (n = 35) or family focused intervention (n = 33). The median change at the six-month follow-up on the global AFEQT score was 4.17 (-1.46-9.17) in the control group and 5.83 (-2.5-30) in the intervention group, yielding a median difference of -1.67 (p = 0.500). Change in ICE-FPSQ showed significant positive scores in favour of intervention (p < 0.001); other secondary outcome changes were non-significant. CONCLUSION: The family-focused intervention had a small positive but non-significant effect on HRQoL compared to standard care. To address the impact of AF on the patients and family members seems to improve anxiety and depression scores and perceived family support.

Experiences from COVID-19-driven use of telephone consultations in a cardiology clinic-The CoviTel study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a rapid shift towards telephone consultations (TC) in the out-patient clinic setting with little knowledge of the consequences. The aims of this study were to evaluate patient-centred experiences with TC, to describe patterns in clinical outcomes from TC and to pinpoint benefits and drawbacks associated with this type of consultations. METHODS: This mixed methods study combined an analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. A quantitative, retrospective observational study was conducted employing data from all 248 patients who received TC at an out-patient cardiology clinic during April 2020 with a one-month follow-up. Semi-structured interviews were conducted; Ten eligible patients were recruited from the outpatient clinic by purposive sampling. RESULTS: Within the follow-up period, no patients died or were acutely hospitalised. Approximately one in every four patients was transferred to their general practitioner, while the remaining three-quarter of the patients had a new examination or a new consultation planned. The cardiologist failed to establish contact with more than a fifth of the patients, often due to missing phone numbers. Ten patients were interviewed. Five themes emerged from the interviews: 1) Knowing an estimated time of the consultation is essential for patient satisfaction, 2) TC are well perceived when individually adapted, 3) TC can be a barrier to patient questions, 4) Video consultations should only be offered to patients who request it, and 5) Prescriptions or instructions made via TC do not cause uncertainty in patients. CONCLUSIONS: The TC program was overall safe and the patients felt comfortable. Crucial issues include precise time planning, the patient's availability on the phone and a correct phone number. Patients stressed that TC are unsuitable when addressing sensitive topics. A proposed visitation tool is presented.