부산대학교 도서관

Introduction: Remote home monitoring models were implemented during the COVID‐19 pandemic to shorten hospital length of stay, reduce unnecessary hospital admission, readmission and infection and appropriately escalate care. Within these models, patients are asked to take and record readings and escalate care if advised. There is limited evidence on how patients and carers experience these services. This study aimed to evaluate patient experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring models for COVID‐19. Methods: A rapid mixed‐methods study was carried out in England (conducted from March to June 2021). We remotely conducted a cross‐sectional survey and semi‐structured interviews with patients and carers. Interview findings were summarized using rapid assessment procedures sheets and data were grouped into themes (using thematic analysis). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: We received 1069 surveys (18% response rate) and conducted interviews with patients (n = 59) or their carers (n = 3). 'Care' relied on support from staff members and family/friends. Patients and carers reported positive experiences and felt that the service and human contact reassured them and was easy to engage with. Yet, some patients and carers identified problems with engagement (e.g., hesitancy to self‐escalate care). Engagement was influenced by patient factors such as health and knowledge, support from family/friends and staff, availability and ease of use of informational and material resources (e.g., equipment) and service factors. Conclusion: Remote home monitoring models place responsibility on patients to self‐manage symptoms in partnership with staff; yet, many patients required support and preferred human contact (especially for identifying problems). Caring burden and experiences of those living alone and barriers to engagement should be considered when designing and implementing remote home monitoring services. Patient or Public Contribution: The study team met with service users and public members of the evaluation teams throughout the project in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools and data interpretation and were conducted to also discuss study dissemination. Public patient involvement (PPI) members helped to pilot patient surveys and interview guides with the research team. Some members of the public also piloted the patient survey. Members of the PPI group were given the opportunity to comment on the manuscript, and the manuscript was amended accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]