JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Remote patient monitoring interventions are being increasingly implemented in healthcare environments given their benefits for different stakeholders. The effects of these interventions on the workflow of clinical staff are, however, not always taken into consideration in remote patient monitoring research and practice.

Objective:

This research explores how contemporary remote patient monitoring interventions impact clinical staff and their workflow in perioperative settings.

Methods:

A scoping review was conducted on recent articles reporting the impact of remote patient monitoring interventions implemented in perioperative settings on clinical staff and their workflow. The databases accessed were Embase and Pubmed. A qualitative analysis was performed to identify the main problems and advantages that remote patient monitoring brings to staff, in addition to the approaches taken to evaluate the impact of those interventions.

Results:

1063 papers were found on the initial search. Of these, 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. 15 of the included papers focused on evaluating new remote patient monitoring systems, 4 focused on existing systems, and 2 were review papers. Different themes were identified in terms of challenges of remote patient monitoring for clinical staff, as well as in terms of benefits, risk-reduction strategies, and methods to measure the impact of these interventions on the workflow of clinical staff.

Conclusions:

The reviewed literature shows that the impact on staff’s work experience is a crucial factor to consider when developing and implementing remote patient monitoring interventions in perioperative settings. As users and providers of remote perioperative care, clinical staff needs to be comfortable and willing to adopt remote patient monitoring interventions, which should not hinder their other tasks. However, we notice both underdevelopment and lack of standardization around the methods for assessing the impact of these interventions on clinical staff and on its workflow. Furthermore, most of the reviewed literature relies exclusively on qualitative and subjective measures, hindering the possibility of meaningful comparison across different interventions and contexts. On the basis of the reviewed literature, we recommend the development of more robust methods for evaluating the impact of RPM interventions on staff experience in perioperative care, the adoption of a stronger focus on transition management when introducing these interventions in clinical practice, and the inclusion of longer periods of assessment including the evaluation of long-term goals.