Benefits and challenges of telemedicine for heart failure consultations: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, heart failure (HF) disease management programmes were predominantly delivered in-person, with telemedicine being uncommon. Covid-19 resulted in a rapid shift to “remote-by-default” clinic appointments in many organisations. We evaluated clinician and patient experiences of teleconsultations for HF. METHODS: From 16th March 2020, all HF appointments at a specialist centre in the UK were telemedicine-by-default through a mixture of telephone and video consultations, with rare in-person appointments. HF clinicians and patients with HF were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews about their experiences. A purposive sampling technique was used. Interviews were conducted using Microsoft Teams®, recorded and transcribed verbatim. Narrative data were explored by thematic analysis. Clinicians and patients were interviewed until themes saturated. RESULTS: Eight clinicians and eight patients with HF were interviewed before themes saturated. Five overarching themes emerged: 1) Time utilisation – telemedicine consultations saved patients time travelling to and waiting for appointments. Clinicians perceived them to be more efficient, but more administrative time was involved. 2) Clinical assessment – without physical examination, clinicians relied more on history, observations and test results; video calls were perceived as superior to telephone calls for remote assessment. Patients confident in self-monitoring tended to be more comfortable with telemedicine. 3) Communication and rapport – clinicians experienced difficulty establishing rapport with new patients by telephone, though video was better. Patients generally did not perceive that remote consultation affected their rapport with clinicians. 4) Technology – connection issues occasionally disrupted video consultations, but overall patients and clinicians found the technology easy to use. 5) Choice and flexibility – both patients and clinicians believed that the choice of modality should be situation-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine HF consultations were more convenient for patients, saved them time, and were generally acceptable to clinicians, but changed workflows, consultation dynamics, and how clinical assessment was performed. Telemedicine should be used alongside in-person appointments in a “hybrid” model tailored to individual patients and settings.