ABSTRACT
Background Virtual hospital (VH) pathways support early discharge through remote monitoring, but limited evidence has hindered implementation in colorectal surgery. This study aimed to define patient-and carer-relevant outcomes and experiences of VH following colorectal surgery.
Methodology A patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) consultation was conducted with 8 participants (7 patients, 1 carer; 4 women, 4 men) who had experienced VH following bowel resection at a high-volume robotic unit. Purposive sampling ensured that 50% of participants had experienced readmission. The 90-minute session was delivered via Microsoft Teams. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results Seven themes were identified: readmission, remote monitoring, carer burden, recovery, equity, readiness for discharge, and information delivery. Patients supported early discharge when remote monitoring enabled timely detection of complications and readmission pathways were efficient. Readmission was not perceived as failure but as appropriate escalation. Dissatisfaction with readmission was related to delays in emergency care. Remote monitoring provided psychological safety, with patients feeling “held” at home. Carers assumed substantial, often unrecognised, quasi-clinical roles. Recovery was defined by return to function rather than length of stay. Equity concerns were evident, with VH favouring those with adequate support at home, digital literacy, and language proficiency. Discharge readiness was both clinical and psychological. Information delivery at discharge was often poorly retained and requires reinforcement preoperatively at every encounter with patients and carers.
Conclusions VH pathways are acceptable and valued. Readmission is a marker of system responsiveness rather than failure of early discharge on VH. Psychological preparedness, carer support, and equitable access are critical to successful and scalable implementation of early discharge using a virtual hospital.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
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:
This study was conducted as a service evaluation within West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and did not require formal NHS Research Ethics Committee approval. This was approved by West Hertfordshire Teaching Hositals NHS Trust. All participants were provided with written information prior to participation and gave informed consent for participation, audio recording, and use of anonymised data.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
