Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40536797›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Factors Influencing the Implementation of a Multispecialty Virtual Ward Program in the United Kingdom: Qualitative Exploration of Staff Experiences and Perspectives.

Ian Litchfield, Richard Lewis, Gayathri Delanerolle, Melyda Melyda, Lorraine Harper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Ian LitchfieldDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-5392
Richard LewisDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8182-0822
Gayathri DelanerolleDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9628-9245
Melyda MelydaDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6740-4910
Lorraine HarperDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1343-9234

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe National Health Service (NHS) in England is facing unprecedented demand for hospital services, with virtual wards (VW) being a central tenet of the strategy to manage these ongoing pressures on capacity. VWs combine digital and analog tools, monitoring systems, and teams of multidisciplinary care providers to support patients in their place of residence who might otherwise be cared for in a hospital. Despite virtual ward programs continuing to proliferate in the United Kingdom and across the globe, the models of care that support them are still evolving, and best practices in their design and implementation are yet to be fully established. It is therefore necessary to continue to gather evidence about the influences that shape their design and support their successful and sustained introduction.

objectiveThis study aims to explore the experience of staff involved in designing, developing, and delivering VWs as part of the national program, in order to understand the factors that influence their implementation and sustainability.

methodsQualitative data were collected through semistructured interviews with staff and senior stakeholders involved in developing, leading, and delivering the virtual ward program within one of the largest integrated care systems in England. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis, informed by the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework.

resultsWe interviewed 20 participants from clinical and nonclinical roles, including service transformation leads, program leads, physiotherapists, nurses, and consultants. Using the NASSS framework, we identified several key findings: patient context was as important as clinical criteria in determining referral suitability (Condition). Stand-alone digital monitoring solutions with offline capability improved accessibility (Technology). While benefits to patient rehabilitation and hospital capacity were widely understood, concerns over the lack of evidence remained (Value proposition). Clearer messaging about the nature and benefits of VWs was needed for patients and carers, and staff described challenges with remote care and shared responsibility across settings (Adopters). Pre-existing collaborative arrangements helped but varied by specialty (Organizations). NHS targets and metrics of success were considered unrealistic (Wider system). Finally, participants recommended more coherent regional planning that involved consultation with patients (Embedding over time).

conclusionsIf the United Kingdom's VWs program is expected to move forward, it requires patients, their families, carers, and staff to receive coherent messaging of their responsibilities and benefits. Targeted training and ring-fenced time for staff would help, as would the provision of purposely designed patient-facing technologies. Finally, extended planning and funding cycles are needed to gather robust evidence and refine VWs, ensuring better integration with existing services that incorporate the needs and preferences of patients from various sociocultural backgrounds.

Indexed as

Patient Care TeamTelemedicineHumansQualitative ResearchState MedicineUnited Kingdomdigital healthhealth services researchqualitative researchremote monitoringvirtual wards

Identifiers

PMID40536797
PMCPMC12226784

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.