Virtual care policy recommendations for patient-centred primary care: findings of a consensus policy dialogue using a nominal group technique

Abstract

Background

The development of new virtual care technologies (including telehealth and telemedicine) is growing rapidly, leading to a number of challenges related to health policy and planning for health systems around the world.

Methods

We brought together a diverse group of health system stakeholders, including patient representatives, to engage in policy dialogue to set health system priorities for the application of virtual care in the primary care sector in the Province of Ontario, Canada. We applied a nominal group technique (NGT) process to determine key priorities, and synthesized these priorities with group discussion to develop recommendations for virtual care policy. Methods included a structured priority ranking process, open-ended note-taking, and thematic analysis to identify priorities.

Results

Recommendations were summarized under the following themes: (a) identify clear health system leadership to embed virtual care strategies into all aspects of primary and community care; (b) make patients the focal point of health system decision-making; (c) leverage incentives to achieve meaningful health system improvements; and (d) building virtual care into streamlined workflows. Two key implications of our policy dialogue are especially relevant for an international audience. First, shifting the dialogue away from technology toward more meaningful patient engagement will enable policy planning for applications of technology that better meet patients’ needs. Second, a strong conceptual framework on guiding the meaningful use of technology in health care settings is essential for intelligent planning of virtual care policy.

Conclusions

Policy planning for virtual care needs to shift toward a stronger focus on patient engagement to understand patients’ needs.

Keywords

Health policy patient engagement primary care telehealth virtual care

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Miller

. Solving the disjuncture between research and practice: telehealth trends in the 21st century. Health Policy 2007; 82(2): 133–141.

Andreassen

Kjekshus

Tjora

. Survival of the project: A case study of ICT innovation in health care. Soc Sci Med 2015; 132: 62–69.

Wootton

. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management–An evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18(4): 211–220.

Asch

. The hidden economics of telemedicine. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163(10): 801–802.

Ettelt

Fazekas

Mays

et al.

Assessing health care planning – a framework-led comparison of Germany and New Zealand. Health Policy 2012; 106(1): 50–59.

Fazekas M, Ettelt S, Newbould J et al. Framework for assessing, improving and enhancing health service planning. Report, RAND Corporation, USA, 2010.

Rose

. Learning from comparative public policy: A practical guide, London: Routledge, 2004.

Hajer MA, Wagenaar H. Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Havas

Schartinger

Weber

. The impact of foresight on innovation policy-making: recent experiences and future perspectives. Res Eval 2010; 19(2): 91–104.

10.

Doarn

Pruitt

Jacobs

et al.

Federal efforts to define and advance telehealth—a work in progress. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20(5): 409–418.

11.

Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care. Virtual Care: A Framework for a Patient-Centric System. Report, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Canada, 2014.

12.

Jones

Hunter

. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311(7001): 376–380.

13.

Fink

Kosecoff

Chassin

et al.

Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984; 74(9): 979–983.

14.

Daniel

Sulmasy

. Policy recommendations to guide the use of telemedicine in primary care settings: An American College of Physicians Position Paper Recommendations for the Use of Telemedicine in Primary Care Settings. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163(10): 787–789.

15.

Van Dyk

. A review of telehealth service implementation frameworks. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11(2): 1279–1298.

16.

Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

17.

Greenhalgh

Procter

Wherton

et al.

The organising vision for telehealth and telecare: discourse analysis. BMJ Open 2012; 2(4): e001574–e001574.

18.

Greenhalgh

Procter

Wherton

et al.

What is quality in assisted living technology? The ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services. BMC Med 2015; 13: 91–91.

19.

Riskin

Koppel

Riskin

. Re-examining health IT policy: What will it take to derive value from our investment? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22(2): 459–464.

20.

Neufeld

Doarn

Aly

. State policies influence medicare telemedicine utilization. Telemed J E Health 2016; 22(1): 70–74.

21.

Kierkegaard

. Governance structures impact on eHealth. Health Policy Technol 2015; 4(1): 39–46.

22.

Mars

Scott

. Global e-health policy: a work in progress. Health Aff 2010; 29(2): 237–243.

23.

Schwamm

Holloway

Amarenco

et al.

A review of the evidence for the use of telemedicine within stroke systems of care. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2009; 40(7): 2616–2634.

24.

Ashraf

Moore

Gupta

et al.

Overview of a multi-stakeholder dialogue around shared services for health: The digital health opportunity in Bangladesh. Health Res Policy Syst 2015; 13(1): 1–1.

25.

Carman

Dardess

Maurer

et al.

Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff 2013; 32(2): 223–231.

26.

Rowland

McMillan

McGillicuddy

et al.

What is “the patient perspective” in patient engagement programs? Implicit logics and parallels to feminist theories. Health 2017; 21(1): 76–92.

27.

Rogers

Kirk

Gately

et al.

Established users and the making of telecare work in long term condition management: implications for health policy. Soc Sci Med 2011; 72(7): 1077–1084.

28.

Epstein

Fiscella

Lesser

et al.

Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care. Health Aff 2010; 29(8): 1489–1495.

29.

Lehoux

Daudelin

Abelson

. The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74(12): 1843–1850.

30.

Sittig

Singh

. A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19(Suppl. 3): i68–i74.