Video Recording Patients for Direct Care Purposes: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of International Empirical Studies and UK Professional Guidance

BACKGROUND: Video recordings of patients may offer advantages to supplement patient assessment and clinical decision-making. However, little is known about the practice of video recording patients for direct care purposes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to synthesize empirical studies published internationally to explore the extent to which video recording patients is acceptable and effective in supporting direct care and, for the United Kingdom, to summarize the relevant guidance of professional and regulatory bodies. METHODS: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and HMIC) were searched from 2012 to 2022. Eligible studies evaluated an intervention involving video recording of adult patients (≥18 years) to support diagnosis, care, or treatment. All study designs and countries of publication were included. Websites of UK professional and regulatory bodies were searched to identify relevant guidance. The acceptability of video recording patients was evaluated using study recruitment and retention rates and a framework synthesis of patients’ and clinical staff’s perspectives based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability by Sekhon. Clinically relevant measures of impact were extracted and tabulated according to the study design. The framework approach was used to synthesize the reported ethico-legal considerations, and recommendations of professional and regulatory bodies were extracted and tabulated. RESULTS: Of the 14,221 abstracts screened, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 13 guidance documents were retrieved, of which 7 were retained for review. The views of patients and clinical staff (16 studies) were predominantly positive, although concerns were expressed about privacy, technical considerations, and integrating video recording into clinical workflows; some patients were anxious about their physical appearance. The mean recruitment rate was 68.2% (SD 22.5%; range 34.2%-100%; 12 studies), and the mean retention rate was 73.3% (SD 28.6%; range 16.7%-100%; 17 studies). Regarding effectiveness (10 studies), patients and clinical staff considered video recordings to be valuable in supporting assessment, care, and treatment; in promoting patient engagement; and in enhancing communication and recall of information. Observational studies (n=5) favored video recording, but randomized controlled trials (n=5) did not demonstrate that video recording was superior to the controls. UK guidelines are consistent in their recommendations around consent, privacy, and storage of recordings but lack detailed guidance on how to operationalize these recommendations in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Video recording patients for direct care purposes appears to be acceptable, despite concerns about privacy, technical considerations, and how to incorporate recording into clinical workflows. Methodological quality prevents firm conclusions from being drawn; therefore, pragmatic trials (particularly in older adult care and the movement disorders field) should evaluate the impact of video recording on diagnosis, treatment monitoring, patient-clinician communication, and patient safety. Professional and regulatory documents should signpost to practical guidance on the implementation of video recording in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022331825: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=331825