Optimising Remote Consulting and Home Assessment of Medically Vulnerable Rural Patients During Unscheduled and Planned Primary Care: Assessing the Feasibility of ORCHARD Intervention -A Feasibility Study
Murchie, P.; Adam, R.; Naqvi, S. A.; Ntessalean, M.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated the adoption of telemedicine, but it also exposed gaps in effective remote clinical assessment, particularly for medically vulnerable patients in rural areas. The ORCHARD intervention aimed to address this by providing patients with a Medical Self-Assessment Box to enable self-reporting of vital signs during remote consultations. MethodsA single-centre randomised mixed-methods feasibility trial recruited medically vulnerable patients from a rural general practice in Northeast Scotland. Participants in intervention group received a home medical equipment box for use during telemedicine consultations over six months. Patients and GPs were interviewed and transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis. ResultsTwelve (15%) of 82 eligible invited patients enrolled. Six each were allocated to intervention and control group. 50%(n=3)patients in intervention group used equipment in 45%(5 of 11)teleconsultations and rated it helpful in all 5 uses (100%). The intervention group had 18% fewer primary care contacts than controls. All remote consultations were by telephone. Framework Analysis of patient interviews identified facilitators such as ease of use, improved triage access, reassurance, and barriers related to GP non-engagement and written instructions. GP interviews identified clinical value in patient-generated readings, alongside concerns regarding workload and patient over-monitoring. ConclusionsHalf of intervention participants used the medical-equipment box during remote consultations, all finding it useful, though frequency of use varied among particpants.A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the Medical Self-Assessment Box for optimising remote consulting in medically vulnerable rural patients is feasible.Prior to a definitive trial refinements are recommended to patient labelling, GP engagement, and training materials.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- What is the suitability of clinical vignettes in benchmarking the performance of online symptom checkers? An audit study 96%
- Primary care use of laboratory tests in Northern Ireland Western Health and Social Care Trust: a cross-sectional study 95%
- Physician experiences of electronic health records interoperability and its practical impact on care delivery in the English NHS: A cross-sectional survey study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Implementation of predictive risk stratification to reduce emergency admissions to hospital: experiences of general practitioners and practice managers 97%
- Changes in General Practice use and costs with COVID-19 and telehealth initiatives 95%
- Impact of COVID-19 on Migrants’ Access to Primary Care: A National Qualitative Study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Feasibility trial of a new digital training package to enhance primary care practitioners' communication of clinical empathy and realistic optimism 95%
- Wellbeing Impact Study of High-Speed 2 (WISH2): Protocol for a mixed-methods examination of the impact of major transport infrastructure development on mental health and wellbeing 95%
- COVI-Prim survey: Challenges for Austrian and German general practitioners during initial phase of COVID-19 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Patients’ and carers’ experiences of, and engagement with remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients: a rapid mixed-methods study 96%
- “I don’t know what to do or where to go”. Experiences of accessing healthcare support from the perspectives of people living with Long Covid and healthcare professionals: A qualitative study in Bradford, UK 94%
- Challenges of visibility and inclusion in Long COVID: a population-based interview study 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.