Jane Hendy

Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: findings from the Whole System Demonstrator cluster randomised trial

Objective To assess the effect of home based telehealth interventions on the use of secondary healthcare and mortality. Design Pragmatic, multisite, cluster randomised trial comparing telehealth with usual care, using data from routine administrative datasets. General practice was the unit of randomisation. We allocated practices using a minimisation algorithm, and did analyses by intention to treat. Setting 179 general practices in three areas in England. Participants 3230 people with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or heart failure recruited from practices between May 2008 and November 2009. Interventions Telehealth involved remote exchange of data between patients and healthcare professionals as part of patients’ diagnosis and management. Usual care reflected the range of services available in the trial sites, excluding telehealth. Main outcome measure Proportion of patients admitted to hospital during 12 month trial period. Results Patient characteristics were similar at baseline. Compared with controls, the intervention group had a lower admission proportion within 12 month follow-up (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.97, P=0.017). Mortality at 12 months was also lower for intervention patients than for controls (4.6% v 8.3%; odds ratio 0.54, 0.39 to 0.75, P<0.001). These differences in admissions and mortality remained significant after adjustment. The mean number of emergency admissions per head also differed between groups (crude rates, intervention 0.54 v control 0.68); these changes were significant in unadjusted comparisons (incidence rate ratio 0.81, 0.65 to 1.00, P=0.046) and after adjusting for a predictive risk score, but not after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Length of hospital stay was shorter for intervention patients than for controls (mean bed days per head 4.87 v 5.68; geometric mean difference −0.64 days, −1.14 to −0.10, P=0.023, which remained significant after adjustment). Observed differences in other forms of hospital use, including notional costs, were not significant in general. Differences in emergency admissions were greatest at the beginning of the trial, during which we observed a particularly large increase for the control group. Conclusions Telehealth is associated with lower mortality and emergency admission rates. The reasons for the short term increases in admissions for the control group are not clear, but the trial recruitment processes could have had an effect. Trial registration number International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN43002091.

Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study

BackgroundTelehealth (TH) and telecare (TC) interventions are increasingly valued for supporting self-care in ageing populations; however, evaluation studies often report high rates of non-participation that are not well understood. This paper reports from a qualitative study nested within a large randomised controlled trial in the UK: the Whole System Demonstrator (WSD) project. It explores barriers to participation and adoption of TH and TC from the perspective of people who declined to participate or withdrew from the trial.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 people who declined to participate in the trial following explanations of the intervention (n = 19), or who withdrew from the intervention arm (n = 3). Participants were recruited from the four trial groups (with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, or social care needs); and all came from the three trial areas (Cornwall, Kent, east London). Observations of home visits where the trial and interventions were first explained were also conducted by shadowing 8 members of health and social care staff visiting 23 people at home. Field notes were made of observational visits and explored alongside interview transcripts to elicit key themes.ResultsBarriers to adoption of TH and TC associated with non-participation and withdrawal from the trial were identified within the following themes: requirements for technical competence and operation of equipment; threats to identity, independence and self-care; expectations and experiences of disruption to services. Respondents held concerns that special skills were needed to operate equipment but these were often based on misunderstandings. Respondents’ views were often explained in terms of potential threats to identity associated with positive ageing and self-reliance, and views that interventions could undermine self-care and coping. Finally, participants were reluctant to risk potentially disruptive changes to existing services that were often highly valued.ConclusionsThese findings regarding perceptions of potential disruption of interventions to identity and services go beyond more common expectations that concerns about privacy and dislike of technology deter uptake. These insights have implications for health and social care staff indicating that more detailed information and time for discussion could be valuable especially on introduction. It seems especially important for potential recipients to have the opportunity to discuss their expectations and such views might usefully feed back into design and implementation.

Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

Objective To examine the costs and cost effectiveness of telehealth in addition to standard support and treatment, compared with standard support and treatment. Design Economic evaluation nested in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Community based telehealth intervention in three local authority areas in England. Participants 3230 people with a long term condition (heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes) were recruited into the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth trial between May 2008 and December 2009. Of participants taking part in the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study examining acceptability, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness, 845 were randomised to telehealth and 728 to usual care. Interventions Intervention participants received a package of telehealth equipment and monitoring services for 12 months, in addition to the standard health and social care services available in their area. Controls received usual health and social care. Main outcome measure Primary outcome for the cost effectiveness analysis was incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results We undertook net benefit analyses of costs and outcomes for 965 patients (534 receiving telehealth; 431 usual care). The adjusted mean difference in QALY gain between groups at 12 months was 0.012. Total health and social care costs (including direct costs of the intervention) for the three months before 12 month interview were £1390 (€1610;

Challenges to implementing the national programme for information technology (NPfIT) : a qualitative study

2150) and £1596 for the usual care and telehealth groups, respectively. Cost effectiveness acceptability curves were generated to examine decision uncertainty in the analysis surrounding the value of the cost effectiveness threshold. The incremental cost per QALY of telehealth when added to usual care was £92 000. With this amount, the probability of cost effectiveness was low (11% at willingness to pay threshold of £30 000; >50% only if the threshold exceeded about £90 000). In sensitivity analyses, telehealth costs remained slightly (non-significantly) higher than usual care costs, even after assuming that equipment prices fell by 80% or telehealth services operated at maximum capacity. However, the most optimistic scenario (combining reduced equipment prices with maximum operating capacity) eliminated this group difference (cost effectiveness ratio £12 000 per QALY). Conclusions The QALY gain by patients using telehealth in addition to usual care was similar to that by patients receiving usual care only, and total costs associated with the telehealth intervention were higher. Telehealth does not seem to be a cost effective addition to standard support and treatment. Trial registration ISRCTN43002091.

A comprehensive evaluation of the impact of telemonitoring in patients with long-term conditions and social care needs: protocol for the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial

Abstract Objectives To describe the context for implementing the national programme for information technology (NPfIT) in England, actual and perceived barriers, and opportunities to facilitate implementation. Design Case studies and in depth interviews, with themes identified using a framework developed from grounded theory. Setting Four acute NHS trusts in England. Participants Senior trust managers and clinicians, including chief executives, directors of information technology, medical directors, and directors of nursing. Results The trusts varied in their circumstances, which may affect their ability to implement the NPfIT. The process of implementation has been suboptimal, leading to reports of low morale by the NHS staff responsible for implementation. The overall timetable is unrealistic, and trusts are uncertain about their implementation schedules. Short term benefits alone are unlikely to persuade NHS staff to adopt the national programme enthusiastically, and some may experience a loss of electronic functionality in the short term. Conclusions: The sociocultural challenges to implementing the NPfIT are as daunting as the technical and logistical ones. Senior NHS staff feel these have been neglected. We recommend that national programme managers prioritise strategies to improve communication with, and to gain the cooperation of, front line staff.

An organisational analysis of the implementation of telecare and telehealth: the whole systems demonstrator

BackgroundIt is expected that increased demands on services will result from expanding numbers of older people with long-term conditions and social care needs. There is significant interest in the potential for technology to reduce utilisation of health services in these patient populations, including telecare (the remote, automatic and passive monitoring of changes in an individuals condition or lifestyle) and telehealth (the remote exchange of data between a patient and health care professional). The potential of telehealth and telecare technology to improve care and reduce costs is limited by a lack of rigorous evidence of actual impact.Methods/DesignWe are conducting a large scale, multi-site study of the implementation, impact and acceptability of these new technologies. A major part of the evaluation is a cluster-randomised controlled trial of telehealth and telecare versus usual care in patients with long-term conditions or social care needs. The trial involves a number of outcomes, including health care utilisation and quality of life. We describe the broad evaluation and the methods of the cluster randomised trialDiscussionIf telehealth and telecare technology proves effective, it will provide additional options for health services worldwide to deliver care for populations with high levels of need.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN43002091

Effect of telecare on use of health and social care services: findings from the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial

BackgroundTo investigate organisational factors influencing the implementation challenges of redesigning services for people with long term conditions in three locations in England, using remote care (telehealth and telecare).MethodsCase-studies of three sites forming the UK Department of Health’s Whole Systems Demonstrator (WSD) Programme. Qualitative research techniques were used to obtain data from various sources, including semi-structured interviews, observation of meetings over the course programme and prior to its launch, and document review. Participants were managers and practitioners involved in the implementation of remote care services.ResultsThe implementation of remote care was nested within a large pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), which formed a core element of the WSD programme. To produce robust benefits evidence, many aspect of the trial design could not be easily adapted to local circumstances. While remote care was successfully rolled-out, wider implementation lessons and levels of organisational learning across the sites were hindered by the requirements of the RCT.ConclusionsThe implementation of a complex innovation such as remote care requires it to organically evolve, be responsive and adaptable to the local health and social care system, driven by support from front-line staff and management. This need for evolution was not always aligned with the imperative to gather robust benefits evidence. This tension needs to be resolved if government ambitions for the evidence-based scaling-up of remote care are to be realised.

Implementation of computerised physician order entry (CPOE) and picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) in the NHS: quantitative before and after study

Objective: to assess the impact of telecare on the use of social and health care. Part of the evaluation of the Whole Systems Demonstrator trial. Participants and setting: a total of 2,600 people with social care needs were recruited from 217 general practices in three areas in England. Design: a cluster randomised trial comparing telecare with usual care, general practice being the unit of randomisation. Participants were followed up for 12 months and analyses were conducted as intention-to-treat. Data sources: trial data were linked at the person level to administrative data sets on care funded at least in part by local authorities or the National Health Service. Main outcome measures: the proportion of people admitted to hospital within 12 months. Secondary endpoints included mortality, rates of secondary care use (seven different metrics), contacts with general practitioners and practice nurses, proportion of people admitted to permanent residential or nursing care, weeks in domiciliary social care and notional costs. Results: 46.8% of intervention participants were admitted to hospital, compared with 49.2% of controls. Unadjusted differences were not statistically significant (odds ratio: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.75–1.07, P = 0.211). They reached statistical significance after adjusting for baseline covariates, but this was not replicated when adjusting for the predictive risk score. Secondary metrics including impacts on social care use were not statistically significant. Conclusions: telecare as implemented in the Whole Systems Demonstrator trial did not lead to significant reductions in service use, at least in terms of results assessed over 12 months. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN43002091.

Leadership for Knowledge Translation The Case of CLAHRCs

Objective To assess the impact of components of the national programme for information technology (NPfIT) on measures of clinical and operational efficiency. Design Quasi-experimental controlled before and after study using routinely collected patient level data. Setting Four NHS acute hospital trusts in England. Data sources Inpatient admissions and outpatient appointments, 2000-5. Interventions A system for ordering pathology tests and browsing results (computerised physician order entry, CPOE) and a system for requesting radiological examinations and displaying images (picture archiving and communications system, PACS). Main outcome measures Requests per inpatient, outpatient, or day case patient for full blood count, urine culture and urea and electrolytes tests, and plain x ray film, computed tomography, and ultrasonography examinations. Results CPOE was associated with a reduction in the proportion of outpatient appointments at which full blood count (odds ratio 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.40), urea and electrolytes (0.55, 0.39 to 0.77), and urine culture (0.30, 0.17 to 0.51) tests were ordered, and at which full blood count tests were repeated (0.73, 0.53 to 0.99). Conversely, the same system was associated with an almost fourfold increase in the use of urea and electrolytes tests among day case patients (3.63, 1.66 to 7.94). PACS was associated with a reduction in repeat plain x ray films at outpatient appointments (0.62, 0.44 to 0.88) and a reduction in inpatient computed tomography (0.83, 0.70 to 0.98). Conversely, it was associated with increases in computed tomography requested at outpatient appointments (1.89, 1.26 to 2.84) and computed tomography repeated within 48 hours during an inpatient stay (2.18, 1.52 to 3.14). Conclusions CPOE and PACS were associated with both increases and reductions in tests and examinations. The magnitude of the changes is potentially important with respect to the efficiency of provision of health care. Better information about the impact of modern IT is required to enable healthcare organisations to manage implementation optimally.

Stimulating whole system redesign: Lessons from an organizational analysis of the Whole System Demonstrator programme

Calls for successful knowledge translation (KT) in health care have multiplied over recent years. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) program is a policy initiative in the United Kingdom aimed at speeding-up the translation of research into health care practice. Using multiple qualitative research methods and drawing on the ongoing processes used by individuals to interpret and contextualize information, we explore how new organizational forms for KT bridge the gap between research and practice. We pay particular attention to the relationship between the organization and practices of KT and leadership. Our empirical data demonstrate how the relationship between leadership and KT shifted over time from a push model where the authoritarian top-down leadership team set outcome measures by which to judge KT performance to one which aimed to distribute leadership capacity across a wide range of stakeholders in health and social care systems. The relationship between the organization and practices of KT and leadership is affected by local contextual influences on policies directed at increasing the uptake of research in clinical practice. Policy makers and service leaders need to recognize that more dispersed type of leadership is needed to accommodate the idiosyncratic nature of collective action.