Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 28;22(9):e19550.
doi: 10.2196/19550.

Patients' and Nurses' Experiences and Perceptions of Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators in Heart Failure: Cross-Sectional, Descriptive, Mixed Methods Study

Maria Liljeroos #  1   2 , Ingela Thylén #  1   3 , Anna Strömberg #  1   3
Affiliations

Patients' and Nurses' Experiences and Perceptions of Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators in Heart Failure: Cross-Sectional, Descriptive, Mixed Methods Study

Maria Liljeroos et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: The new generation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) supports wireless technology, which enables remote patient monitoring (RPM) of the device. In Sweden, it is mainly registered nurses with advanced education and training in ICD devices who handle the arrhythmias and technical issues of the remote transmissions. Previous studies have largely focused on the perceptions of physicians, and it has not been explored how the patients' and nurses' experiences of RPM correspond to each other.

Objective: Our objective is to describe, explore, and compare the experiences and perceptions, concerning RPM of ICD, of patients with heart failure (HF) and nurses performing ICD follow-up.

Methods: This study has a cross-sectional, descriptive, mixed methods design. All patients with HF and an ICD with RPM from one region in Sweden, who had transitioned from office-based visits to implementing RPM, and ICD nurses from all ICD clinics in Sweden were invited to complete a purpose-designed, 8-item questionnaire to assess experiences of RPM. The questionnaire started with a neutral question: "What are your experiences of RPM in general?" This was followed by one positive subscale with three questions (score range 3-12), with higher scores reflecting more positive experiences, and one negative subscale with three questions (score range 3-12), with lower scores reflecting more negative experiences. One open-ended question was analyzed with qualitative content analysis.

Results: The sample consisted of 175 patients (response rate 98.9%) and 30 ICD nurses (response rate 60%). The majority of patients (154/175, 88.0%) and nurses (23/30, 77%) experienced RPM as very good; however, the nurses noted more downsides than did the patients. The mean scores of the negative experiences subscale were 11.5 (SD 1.1) for the patients and 10.7 (SD 0.9) for the nurses (P=.08). The mean scores of the positive experiences subscale were 11.1 (SD 1.6) for the patients and 8.5 (SD 1.9) for the nurses (P=.04). A total of 11 out of 175 patients (6.3%) were worried or anxious about what the RPM entailed, while 15 out of 30 nurses (50%) felt distressed by the responsibility that accompanied their work with RPM (P=.04). Patients found that RPM increased their own (173/175, 98.9%) and their relatives' (169/175, 96.6%) security, and all nurses (30/30, 100%) answered that they found RPM to be necessary from a safety perspective. Most patients found it to be an advantage with fewer office-based visits. Nurses found it difficult to handle different systems with different platforms, especially for smaller clinics with few patients. Another difficulty was to set the correct number of alarms for the individual patient. This caused a high number of transmissions and a risk to miss important information.

Conclusions: Both patients and nurses found that RPM increased assurance, reliance, and safety. Few patients were anxious about what the RPM entailed, while about half of the nurses felt distressed by the responsibility that accompanied their work with RPM. To increase nurses' sense of security, it seems important to adjust organizational routines and reimbursement systems and to balance the workload.

Keywords: heart failure; implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; remote patient monitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Negative experiences regarding remote patient monitoring (RPM) perceived by patients and nurses.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Positive experiences regarding remote patient monitoring (RPM) perceived by patients and nurses.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, Falk V, González-Juanatey JR, Harjola V, Jankowska EA, Jessup M, Linde C, Nihoyannopoulos P, Parissis JT, Pieske B, Riley JP, Rosano GMC, Ruilope LM, Ruschitzka F, Rutten FH, van der Meer P, Authors/Task Force Members. Document Reviewers 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016 Aug;18(8):891–975. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.592. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.592. - DOI - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wijers SC, van der Kolk BYM, Tuinenburg AE, Doevendans PAF, Vos MA, Meine M. Implementation of guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in clinical practice: Which patients do benefit? Neth Heart J. 2013 Jun;21(6):274–283. doi: 10.1007/s12471-013-0407-x. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23572330 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lampert R. Managing with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Circulation. 2013 Oct 01;128(14):1576–1585. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.001555. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ploux S, Varma N, Strik M, Lazarus A, Bordachar P. Optimizing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator remote monitoring: A practical guide. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017 Apr;3(4):315–328. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2017.02.007. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2405-500X(17)30183-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, Bordachar P, Boriani G, Breithardt O, Cleland J, Deharo J, Delgado V, Elliott PM, Gorenek B, Israel CW, Leclercq C, Linde C, Mont L, Padeletti L, Sutton R, Vardas PE, ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) Zamorano JL, Achenbach S, Baumgartner H, Bax JJ, Bueno H, Dean V, Deaton C, Erol C, Fagard R, Ferrari R, Hasdai D, Hoes AW, Kirchhof P, Knuuti J, Kolh P, Lancellotti P, Linhart A, Nihoyannopoulos P, Piepoli MF, Ponikowski P, Sirnes PA, Tamargo JL, Tendera M, Torbicki A, Wijns W, Windecker S, Document Reviewers. Kirchhof P, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Badano LP, Aliyev F, Bänsch D, Baumgartner H, Bsata W, Buser P, Charron P, Daubert J, Dobreanu D, Faerestrand S, Hasdai D, Hoes AW, Le Heuzey J, Mavrakis H, McDonagh T, Merino JL, Nawar MM, Nielsen JC, Pieske B, Poposka L, Ruschitzka F, Tendera M, Van Gelder IC, Wilson CM. 2013 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: The Task Force on cardiac pacing and resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Eur Heart J. 2013 Aug;34(29):2281–2329. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht150. - DOI - PubMed