ArticleAge and ageing2025
Why is implementing remote monitoring in virtual wards (Hospital at Home) for people living with frailty so hard? Qualitative interview study.
Article in Age and ageing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Communication strategies amongst healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers in Hospital-at-Home Admission Avoidance models for acutely ill older adults: a scoping review.European geriatric medicine · 2026Review
- Hospital at Home in 10 years-Here, borrow my binoculars.Journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Factors affecting implementation of hospital inpatient-level care at home: a qualitative study of virtual wards in North West England.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Remote telerehabilitation for frailty management in liver transplant candidates: A feasible yet underutilized strategy.World journal of hepatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is relatively low uptake of remote monitoring on frailty virtual wards (Hospital at Home) compared to virtual wards caring for people with other medical conditions. However, reasons for low uptake are poorly understood.
objectivesTo explore the views and experiences of frailty virtual wards stakeholders involved in implementing remote monitoring.
methodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with 42 stakeholders involved in delivery, design or evaluation of frailty virtual wards based in the UK. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method.
resultsMany participants perceived that remote monitoring was only useful for a small sub-group of patients with frailty for a range of medical, practical and social reasons. Remote monitoring required new ways of working from patients, staff and carers. The nature of this work was not always sufficiently well understood, designed or supported. Procurement practices were also seen to be misaligned with service needs, resulting in provision of equipment that was not fit for purpose. A further challenge in implementing remote monitoring in frailty virtual wards lay in tensions between national-level standardisation and enabling local flexibility.
conclusionsImplementing remote monitoring in frailty virtual wards is challenged by lack of consensus on its suitability for this population, the extent and nature of change in clinical practices and work systems design required, and issues relating to equipment and standardisation. More co-design effort is needed to inform decision-making on remote monitoring for those with frailty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.