Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self Management and Telehealth: Lessons Learnt from the Evaluation of a Dorset Telehealth Program

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Telehealth is one of the ways in which the UK health service is seeking to improve the care of people living with a long-term condition. One of the aims of its “3 million lives” program is to achieve more effective self care. A lot of the research into telehealth has focused on cost effectiveness, effective working practices, and barriers to adoption. Patient experience is frequently discussed in terms of the reassurance experienced from the support offered through telehealth systems.

Objective

This study reports the qualitative findings of an evaluation of a local telehealth program introduced by the Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic heart failure.

Methods

Twenty-nine patients participated in telephone interviews, held at the start of their telehealth experience and after they had been using the system for 3 months. Interviewees included people who had graduated from the telehealth system or had asked to come off it. Healthcare professionals, mainly nurses, involved in the management of patients using the system were also interviewed.

Results

The evaluation found that patients were using the telehealth equipment, often beyond the parameters of the formal telehealth scheme, to develop effective self-management techniques.

Conclusion

These results have implications for policy makers, as removing the equipment when patients graduate as being self managing may mean removing the very tools that make that self management possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. UK Department of Health. Long term conditions compendium of information: third edition. 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-conditions-compendium-of-information-third-edition.

  2. Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernandez JL, Beecham J, Hirani SP, Cartwright M, et al. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2013;346:f1035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. UK Department of Health. 3 million lives. 2013. http://3millionlives.co.uk/.

  4. Burstow P. Minister welcomes 3 million lives approach. 2012. http://3millionlives.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/3millionlives-News-Release.pdf.

  5. de Silva D. Helping people help themselves. London: The Health Foundation, 2011. http://www.health.org.uk/publications/evidence-helping-people-help-themselves.

  6. Klecun-Dabrowska E, Remenyi D, Brown A. Telehealth in the UK: a critical perspective. Second European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies; Reading; 2003.

  7. National Health Service. NHS number standard conformance report for secondary care and general practice. Leeds: NHS Connecting for Health, 2009.

  8. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1989 (Incorporated).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications Limited; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Boyne JJ, Van Asselt AD, Gorgels AP, Steuten LM, De Weerd G, Kragten J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of telemonitoring versus usual care in patients with heart failure: the TEHAF-study. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19(5):242–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodwin N, Giordano R, Clark M. Perspectives on telehealth and telecare: learning from the 12 Whole System Demonstrator Action Network (WSDAN) sites. London: Kings Fund, 2011. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/perspectives-telehealth-and-telecare.

  12. Segar J, Rogers A, Salisbury C, Thomas C. Roles and identities in transition: boundaries of work and inter-professional relationships at the interface between telehealth and primary care. Health Soc Care Community. 2013;21(6):606–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanders C, Rogers A, Bowen R, Bower P, Hirani S, Cartwright M, et al. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):220.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gale N, Sultan H. Telehealth as ‘peace of mind’: embodiment, emotions and the home as the primary health space for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder. Health Place. 2013;21:140–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fairbrother P, Ure J, Hanley J, McCloughan L, Denvir M, Sheikh A, et al. Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: the views of patients and healthcare professionals—a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2013;23(1–2):132–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Paget T, Jones C, Davies M, Evered C, Lewis C. Using home telehealth to empower patients to monitor and manage long term conditions. Nurs Times. 2010;106(45):17–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lu J, Chen C, et al. Advocacy of home telehealth care among consumers with chronic conditions. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(5–6):811–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This service evaluation was carried out on behalf of the Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group, who funded the project.

Carol Bond was responsible for the design and management of the evaluation and for drafting the paper, and is the guarantor for the study.

Louise Worswick was responsible for conducting interviews and data analysis, and contributed to the drafting of the paper.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest for either author.

The funder had no direct involvement in carrying out the evaluation or in the preparation of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bournemouth University, School of Health and Social Care, Royal London House, Christchurch Road, Bournemouth, BH1 3LT, UK

    Carol S. Bond & Louise Worswick

Authors
  1. Carol S. Bond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louise Worswick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol S. Bond.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Patient Interviews

1.1.1 Semistructured Interview Schedule

(Confirm consent for recording.)

(Check length of time on telehealth.)

“Tell me about how you’ve been getting on with using telehealth.” (Explore successes and problems.)

“How does it fit into your daily routine?” (Comfortable fit or disruptive?)

“What happens to your results?” (Explore feedback and communications.)

“How has your care changed since going onto telehealth?” (Explore satisfaction with changes.)

“When you were discussing going onto telehealth, were the reasons discussed with you?” (Explore how was goal setting was done.)

“Can you sum up how you feel about telehealth so far?”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bond, C.S., Worswick, L. Self Management and Telehealth: Lessons Learnt from the Evaluation of a Dorset Telehealth Program. Patient 8, 311–316 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0091-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0091-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation