Patient, Carer and Professional perspectives on the opportunities and challenges for REMOte CARE (REMO CARE) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – A qualitative study (ID 384)
Queen Mary University of London
Funding: National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR) 532.
Abstract
AIMThe increased use of remote consultations to provide care for people with long-term conditions has been accelerated by the pandemic and brings both advantages and disadvantages. In the context of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), most patients are older and many are socially disadvantaged. Remote consultations improve access for the housebound, but increase inequalities if people lack the technology or the confidence to use it. Little is known about the views and experience of remote care from the perspectives of people with COPD, their carers and health care professionals (HCPs).
METHODS
We are conducting in-depth interviews (n=38) using purposive sampling, to explore beliefs, views, attitudes and experiences of patients, their carers and HCPs on the:
• type of remote care offered/received
• experience of remote care and challenges encountered
• preferences for future care delivery and possible solutions
• identification of resources, training, and support needs.
Audio recordings of the interviews are being transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.
RESULTS
The study is ongoing (completion August 2022) with 14 interviews completed. HCPs (n=10) from primary, community and secondary care settings and patients (n=4) reported using remote modalities: telephone, text message, video online platforms, with telephone being most commonly used. Preliminary findings indicate that patients and HCPs prefer a hybrid approach of in-person alongside remote modalities as necessary for safe COPD care. Barriers to remote consultations using online platforms include the lack of access to technology in this patient group and the lack of desire from patients to use such technologies to receive care. Remote modalities limit deeper assessments as they not amenable to the incorporation of HCPs’ tacit knowledge into patient assessments.
CONCLUSION
The study will help understanding of participant experiences on what worked well, what did not work well and how receipt of remote care and its delivery can be improved.
Conflicts of interest: None
The conference has been instigated and organised by PCRS. We are grateful to sponsors and exhibitors who have contributed funding towards this event in return for exhibition space. Neither sponsors or exhibitors have had any input into the agenda or the selection of speakers with the exception of any sponsored satellite symposia which are clearly indicated. View the full list of sponsors.