Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35413002›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Empowering Patients Through Virtual Care Delivery: Qualitative Study With Micropractice Clinic Patients and Health Care Providers.

Lindsay Burton, Kathy L Rush, Mindy A Smith, Selena Davis, Patricia Rodriguez Echeverria, Lina Suazo Hidalgo, Matthias Görges

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Conceptualizing Patient as an Organization With the Adoption of Digital Health.Biomedical engineering and computational biology · 2024
    Article
  13. In-Person versus Virtual CEASE Smoking Cessation Interventions.Journal of biomedical and life sciences · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lindsay BurtonSchool of Nursing, University of British Columbia-Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5379-9165
Kathy L RushSchool of Nursing, University of British Columbia-Okanagan, Kelowna, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0879-7187
Mindy A SmithKootenay Boundary Patient Advisory Committee & Community, Trail, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5965-8881
Selena DavisDepartment of Family Practice, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4542-3341
Patricia Rodriguez EcheverriaKootenay Micro Practice, Nelson, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1331-8141
Lina Suazo HidalgoKootenay Micro Practice, Nelson, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6812-9255
Matthias GörgesDepartment of Anesthesiology Pharmacology & Therapeutics, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2193-178X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrior to the wider adoption of digital health technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic, applications of virtual care were largely limited to specialist visits and remote care using telehealth (phone or video) applications. Data sharing approaches using tethered patient portals were mostly built around hospitals and larger care systems. These portals offer opportunities for improved communication, but despite a belief that care has improved, they have so far shown few outcome improvements beyond medication adherence. Less is known about use of virtual care and related tools in the outpatient context and particularly in rural community contexts.

objectiveThis study aims to reflect on the opportunities and barriers for sustainable virtual care through an example of a digitally enabled rural micropractice, which has provided 10%-15% virtual care since 2016 and 70% virtual care since March 2020.

methodsThree focus groups, 1 with providers (physician and medical office manager) and 2 with a total of 8 patients from a rural micropractice in British Columbia, were conducted in November 2020 and December 2020. Virtual care delivery was explored through the topics of communication approach, mixing virtual and in-person care, the practice team's journey in developing these approaches, and provider and patient satisfaction with the care model. Interviews were transcribed, checked for accuracy against recordings, and thematically analyzed.

resultsBoth patients and providers reported ease of communication and high satisfaction. Either could initiate communication, and patients found the ability to share health information asynchronously through the portal allowed time to reflect and prepare their thoughts. Patients were highly engaged and reported feeling empowered and true partners in their health care, although they noted limited care coordination with specialists. The mix of virtual and in-person visits was highly regarded by patients and providers, and patients reported feeling safe and cared for 24/7, although both expressed concern about work spilling into the provider's home life. The physician worried about missed diagnoses with virtual care. With respect to establishing the micropractice, solutions took about 5 years to optimize, with providers noting a learning curve requiring technical support for both themselves and their patients and a willingness to respond to patient feedback to identify the best solutions. Despite a mature virtual practice, patients reported deferred care due to COVID-19.

conclusionsThe micropractice's hybrid care model encouraged patients to be true partners in their care and resulted in high patient engagement and satisfaction; yet, success may rely on the patient population being willing to engage and being comfortable with technology. Barriers lie in gaps in care coordination and provider fear that signs or symptoms more evident with an in-person exam could be missed. Even in this setting, deferral of care in light of COVID-19 was present, and opportunities to address care gaps should be sought.

Indexed as

COVID-19digital health technologyfamily practicefocus groupsmicropracticepatient portalsrural caretelehealthvirtual care

Identifiers

PMID35413002
PMCPMC9049644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.