JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

While virtual care services existed prior to the emergence of COVID-19, the pandemic catalyzed a rapid transition from in-person to virtual care service delivery across the Canadian healthcare system. Virtual care includes synchronous or asynchronous delivery of healthcare services through online video visits, telephone visits, or secure messaging. Patient advisors are people with patient and caregiving experiences who collaborate within the healthcare system to share insights and experiences in order to improve healthcare .

Objective:

This study aimed to understand patient advisors’ perceptions related to virtual care and potential impacts on healthcare quality.

Methods:

We adopted a phenomenological approach whereby we interviewed 20 participants who were patient advisors across Canada using a semi-structured interview protocol. The protocol was developed by content experts and medical education researchers. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. Data collection stopped once thematic saturation was reached. The study was conducted at Queen’s University, Kingston, ON. We recruited 20 participants from five Canadian provinces (17 females and three males).

Results:

Six themes were identified: 1) Characteristics of effective healthcare, 2) Experiences with virtual care, 3) Modality preferences, 4) Involvement of others, 5) Risks associated with virtual care encounters, and 6) vulnerable populations. Participants reported that high-quality healthcare included building relationships and treating patients holistically. Generally, participants described positive experiences with virtual care during the pandemic, including greater efficiency, increased accessibility, and that virtual care was less stressful and more patient-centred. Participants comparing virtual care with in-person care reported that time, scheduling, and content of interactions were similar across modalities. However, participants also shared the perception that certain modalities were more appropriate for specific clinical encounters (e.g., prescription renewals and follow-up appointments). Perspectives related to the involvement of family members and medical trainees were positive. Potential risks included miscommunication, privacy concerns, and inaccurate patient assessments. All participants agreed that stakeholders should be proactive with applying strategies to support vulnerable patients. Participants also recommended education for patients and providers to improve virtual care delivery.

Conclusions:

Participants reported experiences of virtual care encounters were relatively positive. Future work could focus on delivering training and resources for providers and patients. While initial experiences are positive, there is a need for ongoing stakeholder engagement and evaluation to improve patient and caregiver experiences with virtual care.