What are the objective key elements for successful deployment of telemedicine in hospitals: A holistic approach after 2 years of using a connected tracking solution

Abstract

Objective: The number of telemedicine solutions is growing, and studies are focusing on feasibility assessments. It is time to consider the fundamentals of deploying telemedicine solutions and provide recommendations for effective implementation.
Methods: A qualitative data collection through observation and interview was conducted at our tertiary academic hospital after 2 years of experience with a telemedicine solution. The data underwent semantic analysis, and hypotheses were compared with a literature review to provide recommendations for implementation. Between February 2021 and October 2022, patients’ opinions were gathered through feedback questionnaires using the institutional mHealth application, a key component of the deployed telemedicine solution. Satisfaction results guided conclusions and reevaluations.
Results: During April 2021, 14 interviews were conducted with 7 medical department chairs, 2 head nurses and 5 administrative leaders. Between February 2021 and October 2022, a total of 760 surgical patients used the mobile application CHUV@home and 478 (62.9%) answered the feedback questionnaire. During this period, 1,226 surgical patients were included, and 760 used the mobile application, generating 1,693 alerts with an average resolution time of 130 minutes per alert. Feedback questionnaires were answered by 478 (62.9%) patients, with global satisfaction. Patients and healthcare workers opinions were aligned to foster a design of telemedicine experience. Results were presented in the form of a risk matrix. Five major risks and their mitigation recommendations were highlighted.
Conclusions: With the growing number of telemedicine solutions, many studies focus on feasibility assessment. The present study suggests that a holistic approach, engaging healthcare workers and patients, is essential for developing a meaningful and sustainable telemedicine strategy at a broader systemic level.

Keywords

Telemedicine / mHealth / Implementation of telemedicine solutions / Holistic approach

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Mr. Patrick Zosso for his assistance in extracting and formatting data from the CHUV@home platform.

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

VA, FA and EF contributed to the literature review and study design. VA and FA, collected the data. VA, FA, and EF analysed and interpreted the data. VA, FA, EF and ND wrote the manuscript. All authors performed critical revision and editing, and read and approved the final manuscript.

FUNDING

No funding source to declare.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

INFORMED CONSENT

Informed consent is not applicable to this study. Indeed, this work has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval by our local Ethic Committee (CER-VD-Req-2022-01297).

ETHICAL STATEMENT

(a) The protocol of this work has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval by our local Ethics Committee (CER-VD-Req-2022-01297); (b) All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations (CER-VD-Req-2022-01297); (c) Informed consent is not applicable to this study. Indeed, this work has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval by our local Ethics Committee (CER-VD-Req-2022-01297).

ETHICS APPROVAL

The Publication Ethics Committee of the Sciedu Press. The journal’s policies adhere to the Core Practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; externally double-blind peer reviewed.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

DATA SHARING STATEMENT

No additional data are available.

OPEN ACCESS

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

COPYRIGHTS

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.

References

[1] Kao CK, Liebovitz DM. Consumer Mobile Health Apps: Current State, Barriers, and Future Directions. PM & R: The Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation. 2017; 9(5S): S106-S115. PMid: 28527495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.02.018

[2] Aitken M, Lyle J. Patient adoption of mHealth. Report by the IMS Institute for healthcare informatics. 2015 [Accessed on May 25 2022]. Available from: https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/institute-reports/patient-adoption-of-mhealth.pdf

[3] Eustache J, Latimer EA, Liberman S, et al. A Mobile phone app improves patient-physician communication and reduces emergency department visits after colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2021. PMid: 34933314. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000002187

[4] Mathieu-Fritz A, Gaglio G. In search of the sociotechnical configurations of telemedicine. Literature review in the social sciences. Réseaux. 2018; 207: 27-63. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.207.0027

[5] Semple JL, Sharpe S, Murnaghan ML, et al. Using a mobile app for monitoring post-operative quality of recovery of patients at home: a feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015; 3: e18. PMid: 25679749. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.3929

[6] Racioppi A, Dalton T, Ramalingam S, et al. Assessing the feasibility of a novel mHealth application in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Transplantation and Cell Therapy. 2021; 27: 181. e1-181.e9.[Epub 2020 Dec 13]. PMid: 33830035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtct.2020.10.017

[7] Yao LY, Fleshner PR, Zaghiyan KN. Impact of postoperative telemedicine visit versus in-person visit on patient satisfaction: A randomized clinical trial. Surgery. 2022 Nov 13; S0039-6060(22)00848-0. [Epub ahead of print].

[8] Weil AR. Patients as consumers. Health Affairs. 2019; 38: 3. PMid: 30830815. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00176

[9] Mosa AS, Yoo I, Sheets L. A systematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones. BMC Medical Inform Decis Mak. 2012; 12: 67. PMid: 22781312. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-694 7-12-67

[10] WHO. mHealth new horizons for health through Mobile Technologies. Volume 3. Global Observatory for eHealth Series, 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, World Health Organization. [Accessed on August 7 2022]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/ha ndle/10665/44607

[11] Ventola CL. Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals uses and benefits. P T. 2014; 39(5): 356-64.

[12] Agri F, Hahnloser D, Demartines N, et al. Gains and limitations of a connected tracking solution in the perioperative follow-up of colorectal surgery patients. Colorectal Dis. 2020; 22(8): 959-966.[Epub 2020 Feb 27]. PMid: 32012423. https://doi.org/10.1111/co di.14998

[13] Giebel GD, Speckemeier C, Abels C, et al. Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of Digital Health Applications: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25: e43808. PMid: 37171838. https://doi.org/10.2196/43808

[14] Kotter JP. Leading change. Harvard Business Press; 1996.

[15] Scandizzo S. Risk mapping and key risk indicators in operational risk management. Economic Notes. 2005; 34(2): 231-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0391-5026.2005.00150.x

[16] Ancona D. Framing and Acting in the Unknown. In: The handbook for teaching leadership. (S. Snook, N. Nohria, R. Khurana). SAGE Publications Inc: Los Angeles; 2012. 198-217 p.

[17] Heifetz R, Grashow A, Linsky M. The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization. Harvard Business Press. Boston; 2009.

[18] Harmon RR, Demirkan H, Raffo D. Roadmapping the next wave of sustainable IT. Foresight. 2012; 14(2): 121-138. https://doi.or g/10.1108/14636681211222401

[19] Ming LC, Untong N, Aliudin NA, et al. Mobile Health Apps on COVID-19 Launched in the Early Days of the Pandemic: Content Analysis and Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020; 8(9): e19796. PMid: 32609622. https://doi.org/10.2196/19796

[20] Agri F, Hübner M, Demartines N, et al. Economic considerations of a connected tracking device after colorectal surgery. BJS. 2021; 1-2. PMid: 34738102. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab377

[21] McCurdie T, Taneva S, Casselman M, et al. mHealth consumer apps: the case of user-centered design. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2012; Fall Suppl, 49-46. PMid: 23039777. https://doi.org/10.2345/0899-8205-46.s2.49

[22] Ramasawmy M, Sunkersing D, Poole L, et al. Healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards digital health interventions and perspectives on digital health inequalities in cardiometabolic care: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2025; 15(2): e091018. PMid: 40010817. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091018

[23] Lindemann N. What’s the average survey response rate? [2021 benchmark]. [Accessed on May 20 2022]. Available from: https://pointerpro.com/blog/average-survey-response-rate/

[24] Nonaka I, Toyama R, Konno N. SECI, BA and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning: International Journal of Strategic Management. 2000; 33(1): 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00115-6

[25] Surbier L, Alpan G, Blanco E. A comparative study on production ramp-up: state-of-the-art and new challenges. Production Planning & Control. 2014; 25(15): 1264-1286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2013.817624

[26] Gonsalves L. From Face Time to Flex Time: The Role of Physical Space in Worker Temporal Flexibility. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2020; 65(4):1058-1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220907891

[27] Rogg J, Ma ZB, Pandya M, et al. How to make telemedicine more equitable. Operation and supply chain management. Harvard Business Review. 2021. [Accessed on May 20 2022]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2021/10/how-to-make-telemedicine-more-equitable

[28] Hassink WH, Van den Berg B. Time-bound opportunity costs of informal care: consequences for access to professional care, caregiver support, and labour supply estimates. Soc Sci Med. 2011; 73(10): 1508-16. PMid: 21982632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.08.027

[29] Stoyanov SR, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ, et al. The mobile application rating scale (MARS): A new tool for assessing the quality of health apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015; 1: e27. PMid: 25760773. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.3422

[30] Mytton OT, Velazquez A, Banken R, et al. Introducing new technology safely. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010; 19 (suppl 2): i9-i14. PMid: 20693217. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2009.038554

[31] Chau PY. An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems. 1996; 2:185-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518128

[32] Kim S, Lee KH, Hwang H, et al. Analysis of the factors influencing healthcare professionals’ adoption of mobile electronic medical record (EMR) using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in a tertiary hospital. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016; 16: 12. PMid: 26831123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0249-8

[33] Williams MD, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review. JEIM. 2015; 28(3): 443-488. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088

[34] Tétard F, Collan M. Lazy user theory: A dynamic model to understand user selection of products and services. 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. 2009; 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2009.287

[35] Cases A. L’e-santé: l’empowerment du patient connecté. Journal de gestion et d’économie médicales. [E-health: empowering the connected patient]. 2017; 35: 137-158. https://doi.org/10.3917/jgem.174.0137

[36] Mohlman J, Basch CH. Health-related correlates of demonstrated smartphone expertise in community-dwelling older adults. J Appl Gerontol. 2021; 40(5): 510-518. [Epub 2020 Feb 8]. PMid: 32036723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464820902304

[37] Levine DM, Lipsitz RS, Linder JA. Changes in everyday and digital health technology use among seniors in declining health. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A. 2018; 73(4): 552-559. PMid: 28605446. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glx116

[38] Schiff D, Ayesh A, Musikanski L, et al. IEEE 7010: A new standard for assessing the well-being implications of artificial intelligence. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). 2020; 2746-2753. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC42975.2020.9283454

[39] Kumar S, Nilsen WJ, Abernethy A, et al. Mobile health technology evaluation: the mHealth workshop. Am J Prev Med. 2013; 45(2): 228-236. PMid: 23867031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amep re.2013.03.017

[40] Marcoux G. L’expérience de travail en centre d’appels: aux confins de l’engagement et de la distanciation. [The experience of working in a call center: on the borderline between commitment and distancing]. Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations. 2010; 65(4): 654-672. [Accessed on June 17 2022]. https://doi.org/10.7202/045590ar

[41] Benner P. From novice to expert: excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA; 2001.

[42] Lee DS, Abdullah KL, Subramanian P, et al. An integrated review of the correlation between critical thinking ability and clinical decisionmaking in nursing. J Clin Nurs. 2017; 26(23-24): 4065-4079. PMid: 28557238. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13901

[43] Croskerry P. The rational diagnostician and achieving diagnostic excellence. JAMA. 2022; 327(4): 317-318. PMid: 34994774. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.24988

[44] Edgoose JYC. Exploring the Face-to-Face: Revisiting Patient-Doctor Relationships in a Time of Expanding Telemedicine. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021; 34(Suppl): S252-S254. PMid: 33622849. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2021.S1.200398

[45] Lupton D, Maslen S. Telemedicine and the senses: a review. Sociol Health Illn. 2017; 39(8):1557-1571. [Epub 2017 Oct 25]. PMid: 29071731. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12617

[46] Tuckson RV, Edmunds M, Hodgkins ML. Telehealth. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 1585-1595. PMid: 29045204. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1503323

[47] Gignoux B, Gosgnach M, Lanz T, et al. Short-term outcomes of ambulatory colectomy for 157 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 2019; 270(2): 317-321. PMid: 29727328. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002800

[48] Heymann T. Clinical protocols are key to quality health care delivery. International journal of health care quality assurance. 1994; 7(7): 14-17. PMid: 10140847. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526869410074702

[49] McMahon SK, Lewis B, Oakes M. Older’s adults experiences using a commercially available monitor to self-track their physical activity. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016; 4: e35. PMid: 27076486. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.5120

[50] Moriates C, Shah NT. A framework for the frontline: How hospitalists can improve healthcare value. J Hosp Med. 2016; 11(4):297-302. PMid: 26425782. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2494

[51] Sanders GD, Maciejewski ML, Basu A. Overview of costeffectiveness analysis. JAMA. 2019; 321(14): 1400-1401. PMid: 30855638. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.1265

[52] Leys M. Health care policy: qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003; 65: 217-226. PMid: 12941490. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00209-9

[53] Vukovic V, Favaretti C, Ricciardi W, et al. Health technology assessment evidence on e-health/m-health technologies: evaluating the transparency and thoroughness. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018; 34(1): 87-96. PMid: 29455685. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462317004512