ABSTRACT
Objective There is a paucity of evidence for the implementation of remote home monitoring for COVID-19 infection. The aims of this study were to: identify the key characteristics of remote home monitoring models for COVID-19 infection, explore the experiences of staff implementing these models, understand the use of data for monitoring progress against outcomes, and document variability in staffing and resource allocation.
Methods This was a multi-site mixed methods study that combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyse the implementation and impact of remote home monitoring models during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (March to August 2020). The study combined interviews (n=22) with staff delivering these models across eight sites in England with the collection and analysis of data on staffing models and resource allocation.
Results The models varied in relation to the healthcare settings and mechanisms used for patient triage, monitoring and escalation. Implementation was embedded in existing staff workloads and budgets. Good communication within clinical teams, culturally-appropriate information for patients/carers and the combination of multiple approaches for patient monitoring (app and paper-based) were considered facilitators in implementation. The mean cost per monitored patient varied from £400 to £553, depending on the model.
Conclusions It is necessary to provide the means for evaluating the effectiveness of these models, for example, by establishing comparator data. Future research should also focus on the sustainability of the models and patient experience (considering the extent to which some of the models exacerbate existing inequalities in access to care).
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The study makes a contribution to existing evidence on remote home monitoring models by exploring the design and implementation of these models for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases.
The study was carried out across eight remote home monitoring models implemented in England, capturing variability in the mechanisms used for triage, monitoring and escalation.
Limited evidence was available to assess the effectiveness of the remote home monitoring models.
No comparator data were available for the absence of remote home monitoring.
The study was designed as a rapid evaluation and only captured experiences and processes of implementation in a convenience sample of eight models implemented during the first wave of the pandemic in England.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research-NIHR (Health Services and Delivery Research, 16/138/17 Rapid Service Evaluation Research Team; or The Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation (BRACE) Centre Team (HSDR16/138/31) and NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator; no authors have financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no authors have other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HS&DR, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was reviewed and classified as a service evaluation by the HRA decision tool and the UCL/UCLH Joint Research Office. It was also reviewed by the University of Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (REC): ERN_13-1085AP37.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
c.vindrola{at}ucl.ac.uk, m.s.sidhu{at}bham.ac.uk, theo.georghiou{at}nuffieldtrust.org.uk, chris.sherlaw-johnson{at}nuffieldtrust.org.uk, k.e.singh{at}bham.ac.uk, s.tomini{at}ucl.ac.uk, j.l.ellins{at}bham.ac.uk, sm2428{at}medschl.cam.ac.uk, n.fulop{at}ucl.ac.uk
Data Availability
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
