Key result
Telemonitoring pacemaker patients reported overall positive experiences similar to hospital-monitored patients, but received significantly less information about their diagnosis and afflictions (p=0.046).
Why the study?
Patient experience is central to improving healthcare, but experiences among people living with telemonitoring pacemakers needed evaluation.
Does telemonitoring follow-up improve patient experiences compared to standard hospital monitoring in patients with a pacemaker implant?
RCT (n=50)
Open-label
Sealed envelopes
No
Does telemonitoring follow-up improve patient experiences compared to standard hospital monitoring in patients with a pacemaker implant?
Absolute Event Rate: 4% vs 5%
p-value: p=0.046
Telemonitoring for pacemaker follow-up yields similar overall patient experiences to hospital monitoring, though patients report receiving less information about their diagnosis, highlighting a need for improved communication strategies.
Telemonitoring yields similar overall experiences to hospital follow-up after pacemaker implantation; extends evidence by flagging reduced information delivery and need for communication optimization.
BACKGROUND: The concept of 'patient experience' has become central to how to improve healthcare. Remote communication with patients is today a frequent practice in healthcare services, showing similar outcomes to standard outpatient care while enabling cost reduction in both formal and informal care. The purpose of this study was to analyse the experiences of people with telemonitoring pacemakers. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to either the telemonitoring or hospital monitoring follow-ups. Using the 'Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire' (GS-PEQ), as well as an ad-hoc survey from the 'telehealth patient satisfaction survey' and 'costs survey', patients' experiences were measured six months after the pacemaker implant in a cohort of 50 consecutive patients. The mean age was 74.8 (± 11.75) years and 26 (52%) patients were male of which 1 was lost in follow-up. Finally, 24 patients were followed up with standard hospital monitoring, while 25 used the telemonitoring system. Differences in baseline characteristics between groups were not found. RESULTS: Findings showed overall positive and similar experiences in patients living with telemonitoring and hospital monitoring pacemakers. Significant differences were found in GS-PEQ concerning how telemonitoring patients received less information about their diagnosis/afflictions (p = 0.046). We did not find significant differences in other items such as 'confidence in the clinicians' professional skills', 'treatment perception adapted to their situation', 'involvement in decisions regarding the treatment', 'perception of hospital organisation', 'waiting before admission', 'satisfaction of help and treatment received', 'benefit received', and 'incorrect treatment'. CONCLUSIONS: The remote communication of pacemakers was met with positive levels of patients' experiences similarly to patients in the hospital monitoring follow-up. However, telemonitoring patients received less information. Thus, improving the quality and timing of information is required in telemonitoring patients in the planning and organisation of future remote communication healthcare services for people living with a pacemaker implant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Catalán-Matamoros et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Pacemaker implant (n=50). Telemonitoring vs. Hospital monitoring was evaluated on Patient experience regarding receiving sufficient information about diagnosis/afflictions (GS-PEQ Q3) (p=0.046). Telemonitoring pacemaker patients reported overall positive experiences similar to hospital-monitored patients, but received significantly less information about their diagnosis and afflictions (p=0.046).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: