JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Heart failure is a prevalent condition, ideally managed with collaboration between healthcare sectors. Telehealth between cardiologists and primary care providers is a strategy to improve the quality of care for patients with heart failure. Still, the effectiveness of this approach on patient-relevant outcomes needs to be determined.

Objective:

To assess the feasibility of telehealth support provided by cardiologists for treating patients with heart failure to primary care physicians from public primary care practices in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Methods:

We used mixed methods to assess the feasibility of telehealth support. From 2020 to 2022, we tested two telehealth approaches: synchronous videoconferences (Phase A) or interaction through an asynchronous web platform (Phase B). The primary outcome was feasibility. Exploratory outcomes were telehealth acceptability of patients, primary care physicians and cardiologists, the patients’ clinical status, and prescription practices. Qualitative methods comprised content analysis of 3 focus groups and 15 individual interviews with patients, primary care physicians, and cardiologists. Quantitative methods included the baseline assessment of 83 patients, a single-arm, before-after assessment of clinical status in 58 patients, and an assessment of guideline-directed medical therapy (GMDT) in 28 patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), measured within one year of follow-up. We integrated qualitative and quantitative data using a joint display table and used the ADePT (A process for Decision-making after Pilot and feasibility Trials) framework for feasibility assessment.

Results:

Telehealth support from cardiologists to primary care physicians was generally well accepted. As barriers, patients expressed concern about reduced direct access to cardiologists, primary care physicians reported work overload and a lack of relative advantage, and cardiologists expressed concern about the sustainability of the intervention. Quantitative analysis revealed an overall poor baseline clinical status of patients with heart failure, with 44 out of 83 (58%) decompensated, as expected. Compliance with GMDT for the treatment of HFrEF after telehealth showed a modest improvement for beta-blockers (17/20, 85% to 18/19, 95%) and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (14/20, 70% to 15/19, 79%), but a drop in the prescription of spironolactone use (16/20, 80% to 15/20, 75%). Neprilysin and Sodium-glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) Inhibitors were introduced in 4 and 1 patient, respectively. Missing record data precluded a more precise analysis. The feasibility assessment was positive, favoring the asynchronous modality. Potential interventions include more effective patient and professional recruitment strategies and educational activities to raise awareness of collaborative support in primary care.

Conclusions:

Telehealth was feasible to implement. Considering the stakeholders’ views and insights about the process is paramount to attaining engagement. Missing data must be anticipated for future research in this setting. Considering the recommended adaptations, the intervention can be studied in the cluster randomized trial.