The diversity of providers’ and consumers’ views of virtual versus inpatient care provision: a qualitative study

• Published in: BMC health services research Vol. 23; no. 1; pp. 724 - 12
• Main Authors: Clay-Williams, Robyn, Hibbert, Peter, Carrigan, Ann, Roberts, Natalie, Austin, Elizabeth, Fajardo Pulido, Diana, Meulenbroeks, Isabelle, Nguyen, Hoa Mi, Sarkies, Mitchell, Hatem, Sarah, Maka, Katherine, Loy, Graeme, Braithwaite, Jeffrey
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 04.07.2023; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Ambulatory care; Australia; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Comparative analysis; Consumers; Consumers’ views of care; COVID-19; COVID-19 - epidemiology; Digital literacy; Disease transmission; Focus groups; Health facilities; Health services; Heart attacks; Heart failure; Hospital care; Hospitals; Humans; Innovation in care models; Inpatients; Internet; Medical research; Multiculturalism & pluralism; Pandemics; Patient monitoring; Patients; Providers’ views of care; Qualitative Research; Questionnaires; Services; Technology application; Telemedicine; Virtual care; Workshops; Australia; New South Wales Australia; Qualitative research; Providers’ views of care; Virtual care; Hospitals; Innovation in care models; Consumers’ views of care
• DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09715-x
• ISSN: 1472-6963

A broad-based international shift to virtual care models over recent years has accelerated following COVID-19. Although there are increasing numbers of studies and reviews, less is known about clinicians' and consumers' perspectives concerning virtual modes in contrast to inpatient modes of delivery. We conducted a mixed-methods study in late 2021 examining consumers' and providers' expectations of and perspectives on virtual care in the context of a new facility planned for the north-western suburbs of Sydney, Australia. Data were collected via a series of workshops, and a demographic survey. Recorded qualitative text data were analysed thematically, and surveys were analysed using SPSS v22. Across 12 workshops, 33 consumers and 49 providers from varied backgrounds, ethnicities, language groups, age ranges and professions participated. Four advantages, strengths or benefits of virtual care reported were: patient factors and wellbeing, accessibility, better care and health outcomes, and additional health system benefits, while four disadvantages, weaknesses or risks of virtual care were: patient factors and wellbeing, accessibility, resources and infrastructure, and quality and safety of care. Virtual care was widely supported but the model is not suitable for all patients. Health and digital literacy and appropriate patient selection were key success criteria, as was patient choice. Key concerns included technology failures or limitations and that virtual models may be no more efficient than inpatient care models. Considering consumer and provider views and expectations prior to introducing virtual models of care may facilitate greater acceptance and uptake.