Introduction
During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems have rapidly adopted alternative models for delivering healthcare (e.g., remote service) to minimise the spread of disease [1]. Understanding the impact this has on clinical practice, including patients’ access to and quality of care, is important [2]. We explored the views and experiences of both people living with kidney disease and kidney clinicians on remote healthcare delivered during the pandemic in the UK.
Brief methods
In a multicentre observational study, we surveyed people with kidney disease and clinicians about their views and experiences of remote kidney healthcare delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 5249 (2483 non-dialysis, and 2766 transplant) patients, and 1167 healthcare professionals across 11 sites in England, UK, were invited to take part. Potential participants were sent a link to the online survey. The survey was conceived in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread implementation of remote healthcare. Data were obtained using Jisc Online Surveys (Bristol, UK) between August and December 2020. The study was granted ethical approval by the Leicester Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0117). All patients provided informed online consent and the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Descriptive and frequency data are presented as mean (standard deviation (SD)) or number (percentage). Free text responses were analysed using thematic analysis [3].
Results
A total of 549 (10%) patients completed the survey: 56% were male, the mean age was 60.7 (SD12.7) years, 55% were transplant recipients, with a mean current transplant age of 11.4 (SD34.5) years. Fifty-nine (5%) clinicians completed the survey: 70% were female with a mean age of 43.7 years (SD11.4), 44% were nurses and 28% were consultants or specialist registrars. Participant characteristics are detailed in Supplementary Material 1.
Patient experiences
Prior to the pandemic, 65 (12%) patients had previously experienced remote care. Most patients (91%) reported having had a routine appointment or consultation since the onset of the pandemic; 70% of these were conducted remotely (i.e., video or telephone), 10% were face-to-face, and 11% received both. In total, 64 (13%) felt that their appointment did not meet their expectations and/or needs. Of the 444 patients who had a remote appointment, 430 (97%) stated they would consider having another remote appointment.
Clinician experiences
Forty-five clinicians (76%) reported using remote methods for patient consultations. Of those, 22 (49%) reported using them for outpatient appointments, 7 (16%) reported using remote methods to assess patient needs when they reported a health problem, and 16 (36%) reported using them for both. The most commonly used remote method was telephone (n = 43, 96%), followed by email (n = 25, 56%), then video (n = 16, 36%). Of those who used remote care methods, 36 (80%) were likely to continue using them in the future. Many suggested that remote methods could support face-to-face appointments and be used on an alternative basis (i.e., between face-to-face appointments).
Facilitators and barriers of remote care
Strengths and facilitators of remote care identified included: (1) increased efficiency, (2) reduced burden (including less time, reduced travel), (3) adequate time to prepare, and (4) effective communication. Weaknesses and barriers of remote care identified included: (1) reduced ability to perform clinical assessment and concerns around assessment accuracy, (2) communication difficulties, (3) perceived lack of confidentiality and disclosure, and (4) delayed intervention.
Exemplar quotes of the barriers and facilitators can be found in Supplementary Material 2.
Future use of remote care
Remote care was perceived to have the opportunity to be used more routinely, to support face-to-face appointments, and for specific groups such as those with stable disease.
Exemplar quotes of the future use of remote care can be found in Supplementary Material 2.
Discussion
Our findings show that remote kidney healthcare was well-accepted, with many proposing a hybrid approach to future care (e.g., combination or alternative face-to-face and remote appointments). The balance between face-to-face appointments and remote appointments is delicate, with the optimal frequency of real-life contact undetermined [4]. Although, (the use of) remote appointments may be part of future healthcare, they are not considered to be a replacement for face-to-face appointments [4]. Given that the increased use of technology in routine care is part of the NHS 5 year plan [5], it is imperative that changes are implemented to improve current healthcare models and systems to enable successful integration of telemedicine in routine clinical practice.
Changes in the patterns of delivering care may involve complex interactions and implementation of change methods. Based on our findings, we identified strategies for optimising remote kidney care that could be utilised to ensure high-quality care is delivered to people with kidney disease (Fig. 1).
Limitations
Whilst our patient sample was large and diverse from multiple secondary care sites across England, it was not entirely representative of the UK kidney population due to the exclusion of those receiving dialysis. Our clinician sample size was smaller, but not unexpected due to the high clinical demands at the time of the survey distribution. Due to the pandemic, our survey was conducted online; however, online surveys may not be easily accessible to all, and as a result our sample may under-represent people who are not online (typically older, less affluent, and with limited formal education) [6].
Conclusion
There are lessons to be learnt from delivering remote kidney care during the pandemic and potential strategies for optimising the delivery of future remote kidney care. A shift in the delivery of kidney care may require services to be designed to accommodate a new kidney care model. Further work is needed to ensure that remote care provides the same level of care, and whether discrepancies in the quality of care are perceived or experienced.
References
Monaghesh E, Hajizadeh A (2020) The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: a systematic review based on current evidence. BMC Public Health 20(1):1193. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09301-4
Hutchings R (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on the use of digital technology in the NHS. Briefing August 2020. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/files/2020-08/the-impactof-covid-19-on-the-use-of-digital-technology-in-the-nhs-web-2.pdf.
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Haveman ME, Kleiss SF, Ma KF, Vos CG, Ünlü Ç, Schuurmann RCL, Bokkers RPH, Hermens HJ, De Vries JPM (2019) Telemedicine in patients with peripheral arterial disease: is it worth the effort? Expert Rev Med Devices 16(9):777–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2019.1649595
Maruthappu M, Sood HS, Keogh B (2014) The NHS five year forward view: transforming care. Br J Gen Pract 64(629):635. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X682897
Donkin L, Glozier N (2012) Motivators and motivations to persist with online psychological interventions: a qualitative study of treatment completers. J Med Internet Res 14(3):e91. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2100
Acknowledgements
This report is independent research supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East Midland (ARC-EM) and Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Stoneygate Trust, NHS, NIHR ARC-EM, Leicester BRC or the Department of Health. We would like to acknowledge the numerous research facilitators at each site who contributed to the collection of data in this study and other researchers who assisted with data collection, in particular Daniel Nixon.
Funding
This research was funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East Midland (ARC-EM) and the Stoneygate Trust, and supported by the National Institute for Health Research Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the research idea and study design. CJL, TJW, JP, and AMK contributed to the generation/collection of data. CJL performed the statistical analysis, and TJW assisted with data analysis/interpretation. CJL drafted the manuscript, and all authors reviewed the manuscript. Each author contributed important intellectual content during manuscript revision and accepts responsibility for the overall work by ensuring that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethics approval
Ethical approval was granted by the Leicester Research Ethics Committee (24/05/2018, ref: 18/EM/0117). The study was undertaken in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lightfoot, C.J., Wilkinson, T.J., Palmer, J. et al. Patient and staff experiences of remote kidney healthcare: lessons learnt from COVID-19. J Nephrol 35, 363–365 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-021-01175-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-021-01175-y