ArticleBMC health services research2026
Spread of a heart failure remote patient management program from speciality to community care settings: multiple case study implementation.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Medly remote management program, which has demonstrated effectiveness in a speciality care setting, enables comprehensive management of patients with heart failure by integrating the Medly digital therapeutic with defined clinical roles. One-time funding from Ontario Health was awarded to 3 community-based organizations to implement Medly for the first time outside a speciality care setting. The objectives of this project were to evaluate implementation success and identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing this intervention in 3 community-based settings.
methodsA multiple case study approach was used to determine implementation success using the Proctor implementation outcomes and barriers and facilitators based on constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Qualitative insights were collected through semi-structured interviews (n = 20) with implementation team members 3 months after enrollment of the first patient. Quantitative data for the implementation outcomes were obtained from a secondary analysis of project status reports analyzed 6-months after go-live.
resultsAlthough there was evidence of intervention fidelity and perceptions of acceptability and appropriateness toward the Medly program at all 3 sites, implementation of the Medly program was found to be successful at only one site based on the key Proctor outcomes of feasibility and adoption. The interviews revealed common implementation facilitators across sites related to characteristics of the intervention, including relative advantage and intervention design quality. Between-site differences related to the CFIR constructs of the inner and outer setting highlight unique features that resulted in differing levels of implementation success. Specifically, facilitators included access to a predefined patient pool, maturity of the organization and communication channels and staffing resources while barriers included lack of time to execute the implementation plan as intended.
conclusionThis work demonstrates that remote management programs, like Medly, can be translated from a speciality care setting and implemented with fidelity in community settings. However, certain contextual conditions are important to enhance the likelihood of success of the implementation, particularly when time constraints are imposed.
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.