Clinical unity and community empowerment: the use of smartphone technology to empower community management of chronic venous ulcers through the support of a tertiary unit

Facilitators and Barriers in the Implementation of a Digital Surveillance and Outbreak Response System in Ghana Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Interviews

BACKGROUND

In the past 2 decades, many countries have recognized the use of electronic systems for disease surveillance and outbreak response as an important strategy for disease control and prevention. In low- and middle-income countries, the adoption of these electronic systems remains a priority and has attracted the support of global health players. However, the successful implementation and institutionalization of electronic systems in low- and middle-income countries have been challenged by the local capacity to absorb technologies, decisiveness and strength of leadership, implementation costs, workforce attitudes toward innovation, and organizational factors. In November 2019, Ghana piloted the Surveillance Outbreak Response Management and Analysis System (SORMAS) for routine surveillance and subsequently used it for the national COVID-19 response.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify the facilitators of and barriers to the sustainable implementation and operation of SORMAS in Ghana.

METHODS

Between November 2021 and March 2022, we conducted a qualitative study among 22 resource persons representing different stakeholders involved in the implementation of SORMAS in Ghana. We interviewed study participants via telephone using in-depth interview guides developed consistent with the model of diffusion of innovations in health service organizations. We transcribed the interviews verbatim and performed independent validation of transcripts and pseudonymization. We performed deductive coding using 7 a priori categories: innovation, adopting health system, adoption and assimilation, diffusion and dissemination, outer context, institutionalization, and linkages among the aspects of implementation. We used MAXQDA Analytics Pro for transcription, coding, and analysis.

RESULTS

The facilitators of SORMAS implementation included its coherent design consistent with the Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response system, adaptability to evolving local needs, relative advantages for task performance (eg, real-time reporting, generation of case-base data, improved data quality, mobile offline capability, and integration of laboratory procedures), intrinsic motivation of users, and a smartphone-savvy workforce. Other facilitators were its alignment with health system goals, dedicated national leadership, political endorsement, availability of in-country IT capacities, and financial and technical support from inventors and international development partners. The main barriers were unstable technical interoperability between SORMAS and existing health information systems, reliance on a private IT company for data hosting, unreliable internet connectivity, unstable national power supply, inadequate numbers and poor quality of data collection devices, and substantial dependence on external funding.

CONCLUSIONS

The facilitators of and barriers to SORMAS implementation are multiple and interdependent. Important success conditions for implementation include enhanced scope and efficiency of task performance, strong technical and political stewardship, and a self-motivated workforce. Inadequate funding, limited IT infrastructure, and lack of software development expertise are mutually reinforcing barriers to implementation and progress to country ownership. Some barriers are external, relate to the overall national infrastructural development, and are not amenable even to unlimited project funding.

Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Mobile health (mHealth), refers to healthcare practices supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablets. Within primary care, health workers often use mobile devices to register clients, track their health, and make decisions about care, as well as to communicate with clients and other health workers. An understanding of how health workers relate to, and experience mHealth, can help in its implementation.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise qualitative research evidence on health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services, and to develop hypotheses about why some technologies are more effective than others.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index in January 2018. We searched Global Health in December 2015. We screened the reference lists of included studies and key references and searched seven sources for grey literature (16 February to 5 March 2018). We re-ran the search strategies in February 2020. We screened these records and any studies that we identified as potentially relevant are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that used qualitative data collection and analysis methods. We included studies of mHealth programmes that were part of primary healthcare services. These services could be implemented in public or private primary healthcare facilities, community and workplace, or the homes of clients. We included all categories of health workers, as well as those persons who supported the delivery and management of the mHealth programmes. We excluded participants identified as technical staff who developed and maintained the mHealth technology, without otherwise being involved in the programme delivery. We included studies conducted in any country.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed abstracts, titles and full-text papers according to the inclusion criteria. We found 53 studies that met the inclusion criteria and sampled 43 of these for our analysis. For the 43 sampled studies, we extracted information, such as country, health worker category, and the mHealth technology. We used a thematic analysis process. We used GRADE-CERQual to assess our confidence in the findings.

MAIN RESULTS

Most of the 43 included sample studies were from low- or middle-income countries. In many of the studies, the mobile devices had decision support software loaded onto them, which showed the steps the health workers had to follow when they provided health care. Other uses included in-person and/or text message communication, and recording clients' health information. Almost half of the studies looked at health workers' use of mobile devices for mother, child, and newborn health. We have moderate or high confidence in the following findings. mHealth changed how health workers worked with each other: health workers appreciated being more connected to colleagues, and thought that this improved co-ordination and quality of care. However, some described problems when senior colleagues did not respond or responded in anger. Some preferred face-to-face connection with colleagues. Some believed that mHealth improved their reporting, while others compared it to "big brother watching". mHealth changed how health workers delivered care: health workers appreciated how mHealth let them take on new tasks, work flexibly, and reach clients in difficult-to-reach areas. They appreciated mHealth when it improved feedback, speed and workflow, but not when it was slow or time consuming. Some health workers found decision support software useful; others thought it threatened their clinical skills. Most health workers saw mHealth as better than paper, but some preferred paper. Some health workers saw mHealth as creating more work. mHealth led to new forms of engagement and relationships with clients and communities: health workers felt that communicating with clients by mobile phone improved care and their relationships with clients, but felt that some clients needed face-to-face contact. Health workers were aware of the importance of protecting confidential client information when using mobile devices. Some health workers did not mind being contacted by clients outside working hours, while others wanted boundaries. Health workers described how some community members trusted health workers that used mHealth while others were sceptical. Health workers pointed to problems when clients needed to own their own phones. Health workers' use and perceptions of mHealth could be influenced by factors tied to costs, the health worker, the technology, the health system and society, poor network access, and poor access to electricity: some health workers did not mind covering extra costs. Others complained that phone credit was not delivered on time. Health workers who were accustomed to using mobile phones were sometimes more positive towards mHealth. Others with less experience, were sometimes embarrassed about making mistakes in front of clients or worried about job security. Health workers wanted training, technical support, user-friendly devices, and systems that were integrated into existing electronic health systems. The main challenges health workers experienced were poor network connections, access to electricity, and the cost of recharging phones. Other problems included damaged phones. Factors outside the health system also influenced how health workers experienced mHealth, including language, gender, and poverty issues. Health workers felt that their commitment to clients helped them cope with these challenges.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings propose a nuanced view about mHealth programmes. The complexities of healthcare delivery and human interactions defy simplistic conclusions on how health workers will perceive and experience their use of mHealth. Perceptions reflect the interplay between the technology, contexts, and human attributes. Detailed descriptions of the programme, implementation processes and contexts, alongside effectiveness studies, will help to unravel this interplay to formulate hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of mHealth.

Health Sensors, Smart Home Devices, and the Internet of Medical Things: An Opportunity for Dramatic Improvement in Care for the Lower Extremity Complications of Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The prevalent and long-neglected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and its related complications rank among the most debilitating and costly sequelae of diabetes. With the rise of the Internet of medical things (IoMT), along with smart devices, the med-tech industry is on the cusp of a home-care revolution, which could also create opportunity for developing effective solutions with significant potential to reduce DFU-associated costs and saving limbs. This article discusses potential applications of IoMT to the DFU patient population and beyond.

METHODS

To better understand potential opportunities and challenges associated with implementing IoMT for management of DFU, the authors reviewed recent relevant literatures and included their own expert opinions from a multidisciplinary point of view including podiatry, engineering, and data security.

RESULTS

The IoMT has opened digital transformation of home-based diabetic foot care, as it enables promoting patient engagement, personalized care and smart management of chronic and noncommunicable diseases through individual data-driven treatment regimens, telecommunication, data mining, and comprehensive feedback tailored to individual requirements. In particular, with recent advances in voice-activated commands technology and its integration as a part of IoMT, new opportunities have emerged to improve the patient's central role and responsibility in enabling an optimized health care ecosystem.

CONCLUSIONS

The IoMT has opened new opportunities in health care from remote monitoring to smart sensors and medical device integration. While it is at its early stage of development, ultimately we envisage a connected home that, using voice-controlled technology and Bluetooth-radio-connected add-ons, may augment much of what home health does today.

Telemedicine follow-up facilitates more comprehensive diabetes foot ulcer care: A qualitative study in home-based and specialist health care

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate the application of a telemedicine intervention in diabetes foot ulcer care, and its implications for the healthcare professionals in the clinical field.

BACKGROUND

Contextual factors are found to be important when applying technology in health care and applying telemedicine in home-based care has been identified as particularly complex.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted field observations and individual interviews among healthcare professionals in home-based care and specialist health care in a diabetes foot care telemedicine RCT (Clin.Trial.gov: NCT01710774) during 2016. This study was guided by Interpretive Description, an inductive qualitative methodology.

RESULTS

Overall, we identified unequal possibilities for applying telemedicine in diabetes foot ulcer care within the hospital and home care contexts. Different circumstances and possibilities in home-based care made the application of telemedicine as intended more difficult. The healthcare professionals in both care contexts perceived the application of telemedicine to facilitate a more comprehensive approach towards the patients, but with different possibilities to enact it.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of telemedicine in home-based care was more challenging than in the outpatient clinic setting. Introducing more updated equipment and minor structural adjustments in consultation time and resources could make the use of telemedicine in home-based care more robust.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Application of telemedicine in diabetes foot ulcer follow-up may enhance the nursing staff's ability to conduct comprehensive assessment and care of the foot ulcer as well as the patient's total situation. Access to adequate equipment and time, particularly in home-based care, is necessary to capitalise on this new technology.

Assessing and comparing the quality of wound centres: a literature review and benchmarking pilot

Multidisciplinary wound centres are currently facing an increase in both the incidence of wounds and the complexity of care. This has resulted in rising costs and increased interest in the effectiveness of treatments. Little evidence is available regarding optimal wound centre organisation and effectiveness; therefore, measuring the quality of wound centres has become more important. This study aims to assess the evidence concerning quality by describing the state of the art of wound centres and organisational effectiveness by developing indicators of quality and by assessing their suitability in a pilot study. A multi-method approach was used: a literature review performed resulted in the development of an indicator list that was consequently subjected to expert review, and a benchmark study was completed comparing eight wound centres in the Netherlands. We thus provide a description of the relevant state-of-the-art aspects of wound centre organisation, which were multidisciplinary collaborations and standardisation of the organisation of care. In literature, significant patient-related effects were observed in improved healing rates and decreased costs. A total of 48 indicators were selected. The indicator list was tested by a benchmark study pilot. In practice, the outcome indicators were especially difficult to generate. Six indicators regarding structure, three regarding process and five regarding outcome proved feasible to measure and improve quality of wound centres.

Outpatient services and primary care: scoping review, substudies and international comparisons

Aim

This study updates a previous scoping review published by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in 2006 (Roland M, McDonald R, Sibbald B.Outpatient Services and Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Research Into Strategies For Improving Outpatient Effectiveness and Efficiency. Southampton: NIHR Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre; 2006) and focuses on strategies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of outpatient services.

Findings from the scoping review

Evidence from the scoping review suggests that, with appropriate safeguards, training and support, substantial parts of care given in outpatient clinics can be transferred to primary care. This includes additional evidence since our 2006 review which supports general practitioner (GP) follow-up as an alternative to outpatient follow-up appointments, primary medical care of chronic conditions and minor surgery in primary care. Relocating specialists to primary care settings is popular with patients, and increased joint working between specialists and GPs, as suggested in the NHS Five Year Forward View, can be of substantial educational value. However, for these approaches there is very limited information on cost-effectiveness; we do not know whether they increase or reduce overall demand and whether the new models cost more or less than traditional approaches. One promising development is the increasing use of e-mail between GPs and specialists, with some studies suggesting that better communication (including the transmission of results and images) could substantially reduce the need for some referrals.

Findings from the substudies

Because of the limited literature on some areas, we conducted a number of substudies in England. The first was of referral management centres, which have been established to triage and, potentially, divert referrals away from hospitals. These centres encounter practical and administrative challenges and have difficulty getting buy-in from local clinicians. Their effectiveness is uncertain, as is the effect of schemes which provide systematic review of referrals within GP practices. However, the latter appear to have more positive educational value, as shown in our second substudy. We also studied consultants who held contracts with community-based organisations rather than with hospital trusts. Although these posts offer opportunities in terms of breaking down artificial and unhelpful primary–secondary care barriers, they may be constrained by their idiosyncratic nature, a lack of clarity around roles, challenges to professional identity and a lack of opportunities for professional development. Finally, we examined the work done by other countries to reform activity at the primary–secondary care interface. Common approaches included the use of financial mechanisms and incentives, the transfer of work to primary care, the relocation of specialists and the use of guidelines and protocols. With the possible exception of financial incentives, the lack of robust evidence on the effect of these approaches and the contexts in which they were introduced limits the lessons that can be drawn for the English NHS.

Conclusions

For many conditions, high-quality care in the community can be provided and is popular with patients. There is little conclusive evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the provision of more care in the community. In developing new models of care for the NHS, it should not be assumed that community-based care will be cheaper than conventional hospital-based care. Possible reasons care in the community may be more expensive include supply-induced demand and addressing unmet need through new forms of care and through loss of efficiency gained from concentrating services in hospitals. Evidence from this study suggests that further shifts of care into the community can be justified only if (a) high value is given to patient convenience in relation to NHS costs or (b) community care can be provided in a way that reduces overall health-care costs. However, reconfigurations of services are often introduced without adequate evaluation and it is important that new NHS initiatives should collect data to show whether or not they have added value, and improved quality and patient and staff experience.

Funding

The NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Integration of advances in social media and mHealth technology are pivotal to successful cancer prevention and control

The successful prevention and treatment of cancer is dependent upon efficient and reliable communication between healthcare workers and patients. Advances in social media and mHealth platforms have provided new ways in which to enhance the sharing of cancer related information. Other benefits of embracing this technology include utilising its analytic capabilities which can process the vast quantity of information generated from genome exploration in a highly efficient manner. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the rapidly evolving areas through which digital engagement is proving useful in the prevention and control of cancer.