RESUMEN
Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the NHS delivered a community-based remote home monitoring service for COVID-19 patients. The service came in two models characterised based on the referral method: home-based care to ensure the right people were admitted at hospital at the right time (named COVID Oximetry @ home (CO@h)) and facilitation of patients' transition when discharged home (named Covid-19 Virtual Ward (CVW)). Patients were provided with pulse oximeters and asked to regularly record and submit oxygen levels and other symptoms to a team of administrators and clinicians via digital means (tech-enable and analogue mode) and/or over the phone (analogue). Our aim was to evaluate the costs of implementing these services in England during wave 2 of the pandemic (October 2020-April 2021). Method(s): We used a top-down approach to describe the costs of setting-up and running the service. 26 sites reported the number of patients and staff members involved in the service, and other used resources. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analysis were used appropriately. Result(s): The mean cost per patient monitored was lower in the CO@h service compared to the CVW (527.5 vs. 599.1). The corresponding cost was lower for sites using tech-enabled and analogue data submission mode compared to sites using analogue-only mode for both CO@h (515 vs. 561) and CVW (584 vs. 612) services. The number of patients enrolled in the service and the service type significantly affected the mean cost per patient (b=0.62, p= 0.001;b=-457.99, p=0.05 correspondingly). Conclusion(s): Our analysis offers a model for future research since it covers sites of various sizes and raises questions about different practices within the overall remote monitoring services.Copyright © 2023
RESUMEN
Introduction: In 2020, stroke and ambulance clinicians in North Central (NC) London and East Kent introduced prehospital video triage, which permitted stroke specialist assessment of suspected stroke patients on scene. Key aims included reducing conveyance of non-stroke patients to stroke services and reducing transmission of Covid-19. Method(s): Rapid, mixed-method evaluation of prehospital video triage in NC London and East Kent (conducted July 2020-September 2021), drawing on: * Interviews with ambulance and stroke clinicians (n=27);observations (n=12);documents (n=23). * Survey of ambulance clinicians (n=233). * Descriptive analysis of local ambulance conveyance data (n=1,400;April-September 2020). * Difference-in-differences regression analysis: team-level national audit data, assessing changes in delivery of clinical interventions in NC London and East Kent relative to elsewhere in England (n=137,650;2018-2020). Result(s): Clinicians perceived prehospital video triage as usable, safe, and preferable to 'business-as-usual'. Several interrelated factors influenced implementation: impetus of Covid- 19, facilitative local governance, receptive professional values, engaging clinical leadership, active training approaches, and stable audio-visual signal. Stroke clinician capacity was a risk to sustainability. Neither area saw increased time from symptom onset to arrival at services. Delivery of clinical interventions either remained unchanged or improved significantly, relative to elsewhere in England. Conclusion(s): Prehospital video triage in NC London and East Kent was perceived as usable, acceptable, and safe;it was associated with some significant improvements in secondary care processes. Key influences included national and local context, characteristics of triage services, and implementation approaches.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In response to COVID-19, alongside other service changes, North Central London and East Kent implemented prehospital video triage: this involved stroke and ambulance clinicians communicating over FaceTime (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) to assess suspected stroke patients while still on scene. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation, experience and impact of prehospital video triage in North Central London and East Kent. DESIGN: A rapid mixed-methods service evaluation (July 2020 to September 2021) using the following methods. (1) Evidence reviews: scoping review (15 reviews included) and rapid systematic review (47 papers included) on prehospital video triage for stroke, covering usability (audio-visual and signal quality);acceptability (whether or not clinicians want to use it);impact (on outcomes, safety, experience and cost-effectiveness);and factors influencing implementation. (2) Clinician views of prehospital video triage in North Central London and East Kent, covering usability, acceptability, patient safety and implementation: qualitative analysis of interviews with ambulance and stroke clinicians (n = 27), observations (n = 12) and documents (n = 23);a survey of ambulance clinicians (n = 233). (3) Impact on safety and quality: analysis of local ambulance conveyance times (n = 1400;April to September 2020). Analysis of national stroke audit data on ambulance conveyance and stroke unit delivery of clinical interventions in North Central London, East Kent and the rest of England (n = 137,650;July 2018 to December 2020). RESULTS: (1) Evidence: limited but growing, and sparse in UK settings. Prehospital video triage can be usable and acceptable, requiring clear network connection and audio-visual signal, clinician training and communication. Key knowledge gaps included impact on patient conveyance, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. (2) Clinician views. Usability - relied on stable Wi-Fi and audio-visual signals, and back-up processes for when signals failed. Clinicians described training as important for confidence in using prehospital video triage services, noting potential for 'refresher' courses and joint training events. Ambulance clinicians preferred more active training, as used in North Central London. Acceptability - most clinicians felt that prehospital video triage improved on previous processes and wanted it to continue or expand. Ambulance clinicians reported increased confidence in decisions. Stroke clinicians found doing assessments alongside their standard duties a source of pressure. Safety - clinical leaders monitored and managed potential patient safety issues;clinicians felt strongly that services were safe. Implementation - several factors enabled prehospital video triage at a system level (e.g. COVID-19) and more locally (e.g. facilitative governance, receptive clinicians). Clinical leaders reached across and beyond their organisations to engage clinicians, senior managers and the wider system. (3) Impact on safety and quality: we found no evidence of increased times from symptom onset to arrival at services or of stroke clinical interventions reducing in studied areas. We found several significant improvements relative to the rest of England (possibly resulting from other service changes). LIMITATIONS: We could not interview patients and carers. Ambulance data had no historic or regional comparators. Stroke audit data were not at patient level. Several safety issues were not collected routinely. Our survey used a convenience sample. CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital video triage was perceived as usable, acceptable and safe in both areas. FUTURE RESEARCH: Qualitative research with patients, carers and other stakeholders and quantitative analysis of patient-level data on care delivery, outcomes and cost-effectiveness, using national controls. Focus on sustainability and roll-out of services. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021254209. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research;Vol. 10, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
RESUMEN
Background: In 2020, North Central (NC) London and East Kent introduced prehospital video triage, where stroke and ambulance clinicians used videoconferencing to assess suspected stroke patients on scene. The aim was to reduce conveyance of non-stroke patients to stroke services and reduce transmission of Covid-19. Methods: Rapid, mixed-method evaluation of prehospital video triage in NC London and East Kent (July 2020-September 2021), drawing on: • Interviews with ambulance and stroke clinicians (n=27);observations (n=12);documents (n=23);• Survey of ambulance clinicians (n=233) in NC London and East Kent. • Descriptive statistical analysis of local ambulance conveyance data (n=1,400;April-September 2020). • Difference-in-differences regression analysis of team-level national audit data, to understand changes in delivery of clinical interventions in NC London and East Kent relative to the rest of England (n=137,650;2018-2020). Results: Interview and survey data suggested clinicians perceived prehospital video triage as usable, safe, and preferable to 'business-as-usual'. Several interrelated factors influenced implementation, including impetus of Covid-19, facilitative local governance, receptive professional values, engaging clinical leadership, active training approaches, and stable audiovisual signal;stroke clinician capacity was a potential risk to sustainability. Neither area saw increased time from symptom onset to arrival at services, while delivery of clinical interventions either remained unchanged or improved significantly, relative to the rest of England. Conclusions: Prehospital video triage in NC London and East Kent was perceived as usable, acceptable, and safe;it was associated with some significant improvements in secondary care processes. Key influences included national and local context, characteristics of triage services, and implementation approaches.