University of Leicester
Browse
e000345.full.pdf (535.2 kB)

Use, Utility and Methods of Tele-Health for COPD patients in England and Wales: a health-care provider survey

Download (535.2 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2019-03-27, 12:17 authored by A Al Rajeh, M Steiner, Y Aldabayan, A Aldhahir, E Pickett, S Quaderi, J Hurst
Introduction Although the effectiveness of domiciliary monitoring (telehealth) to improve outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is controversial, it is being used in the National Health Service (NHS).

Aim To explore the use of teleheath for COPD across England and Wales, to assess the perceptions of clinicians employing telehealth in COPD and to summarise the techniques that have been used by healthcare providers to personalise alarm limits for patients with COPD enrolled in telehealth programmes.

Methods A cross-sectional survey consisting of 14 questions was sent to 230 COPD community services in England and Wales. Questions were designed to cover five aspects of telehealth in COPD: purpose of use, equipment type, clinician perceptions, variables monitored and personalisation of alarm limits.

Results 65 participants completed the survey from 52 different NHS Trusts. 46% of Trusts had used telehealth for COPD, and currently, 31% still provided telehealth services to patients with COPD. Telehealth is most commonly used for baseline monitoring and to allow early detection of exacerbations, with 54% believing it to be effective. The three most commonly monitored variables were oxygen saturation, heart rate and breathlessness. A variety of methods were used to set alarm limits with the majority of respondents believing that at least 40% of alarms were false.

Conclusion Around one-third of responded community COPD services are using telehealth, believing it to be effective without robust evidence, with a variety of variables monitored, a variety of hardware and varying techniques to set alarm limits with high false alarm frequencies.

Funding

Funding: King Faisal University through the Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau in London.

History

Citation

BMJ Open Respiratory Research 2019;6:e000345. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2018-000345

Author affiliation

/Organisation/COLLEGE OF LIFE SCIENCES/School of Medicine/Department of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation

Version

  • VoR (Version of Record)

Published in

BMJ Open Respiratory Research

Volume

6

Publisher

BMJ Publishing Group

issn

2052-4439

Acceptance date

2019-01-13

Copyright date

2019

Available date

2019-02-18

Notes

The file associated with this record is under embargo until publication, in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The full text may be available through the publisher links provided above.

Language

en

Usage metrics

    University of Leicester Publications

    Categories

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC