AimTo synthesize the literature on the experiences of patients, families and healthcare professionals with video calls during hospital admission. Second, to investigate facilitators and barriers of implementation of video calls in hospital wards.DesignScoping review.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar were searched for relevant publications in the period between 2011 and 2023. Publications were selected if they focused on experiences of patients, families or healthcare professionals with video calls between patients and their families; or between families of hospitalized patients and healthcare professionals. Quantitative and qualitative data were summarized in data charting forms.ResultsForty-three studies were included. Patients and families were satisfied with video calls as it facilitated daily communication. Family members felt more engaged and felt they could provide support to their loved ones during admission. Healthcare professionals experienced video calls as an effective way to communicate when in-person visits were not allowed. However, they felt that video calls were emotionally difficult as it was hard to provide support at distance and to use communication skills effectively. Assigning local champions and training of healthcare professionals were identified as facilitators for implementation. Technical issues and increased workload were mentioned as main barriers.ConclusionPatients, families and healthcare professionals consider video calls as a good alternative when in-person visits are not allowed. Healthcare professionals experience more hesitation towards video calls during admission, as it increases perceived workload. In addition, they are uncertain whether video calls are as effective as in-person conservations.Implications for the Clinical PracticeWhen implementing video calls in hospital wards, policymakers and healthcare professionals should select strategies that address the positive aspects of family involvement at distance and the use of digital communication skills.Patient ContributionNo patient or public contribution.
MULTIFILE
Background: There is an increasing number of patients with a chronic illness demanding primary care services. This demands for effective self-management support, including collaborative goal setting. Despite the fact that primary care professionals seem to have difficulties implementing goal setting, little information is available about the factors influencing the complexity of this process in primary care. Objective: The aim of this study was to contribute to an understanding of the complexity of selfmanagement goal setting in primary care by exploring experts’ and primary care professionals’ experiences with self-management goal setting and viewpoints regarding influencing factors. Methods: A descriptive qualitative research methodology was adopted. Two focus groups and three individual interviews were conducted (total participants n = 17). Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: The findings were categorized into four main themes with subordinated subthemes. The themes focus around the complexity of setting non-medical goals and around professionals’ skills and attitudes to negotiate and decide about goals with patients. Furthermore, patients’ skills and attitudes for goal setting and the integration of goal setting in the time available were formulated as themes. Conclusions: Setting self-management goals in primary care, especially in family medicine, might require a shift from a medical perspective to a biopsychosocial perspective, with an increasing role set aside for the professional to coach the patient in expressing his self-management goals and to take responsibility for these goals.
Background: To prevent deterioration after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and to improve rehabilitation, the ICU team should use digital technologies to provide comprehensive and practical information alongside personalised support for survivors and their family members. However, a knowledge gap exists on the users’ preferences for such an e-health platform in ICU follow-up services. Objectives: This study aims to explore the opinions and priorities for an e-health platform, including choices in digital elements, according to survivors of critical illness and their family members. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used among members and other interested individuals of the Dutch volunteer organisation ‘Foundation Family- and Patient-Centred Intensive Care’. An investigator-developed questionnaire was disseminated through the newsletter and social media channels of the Foundation Family- and Patient-Centred Intensive Care. The results of this member consultation were analysed and reported as descriptive statistics on demographic variables and outcome measures in opinions and priorities of the participants. Results: Most of the 227 participants were female (76%), aged 46–55 years (33%), and completed higher education (70%). The participants reported high confidence in advice delivered through an e-health platform (72%). They prioritised the provision of a guide including relevant professionals who may support them during their recovery when using an e-health platform. Conclusions: ICU survivors prioritised the provision of relevant professionals who may support them during their recovery when using an e-health platform; however, selection bias means the population studied is likely to be more digitally connected than the general ICU population. Digital solutions could cater to their information and support needs. For family members, the highest priority reported was receiving help in managing their emotional distress. The development of an e-health platform considering the opinions and priorities of this target group could contribute to a personalised recovery trajectory promoting self-management while including digital elements addressing relevant ICU follow-up services.
MULTIFILE
