Harris, Ann M.

AbstractBackground and aimsLittle research has been done on tele‐intensive care unit (ICU) implementation across different types of ICUs, and there exist few studies that have used qualitative research methods to analyze the human and organizational factors influencing optimization of telemedicine for newborn resuscitation. The objective of this study was to understand health care professionals' acceptance, utilization, and integration of video telemedicine for newborn resuscitation (termed teleneonatology) in community hospital settings.MethodsFocus group and individual interviews were conducted with 49 health care professionals at six affiliated health system hospitals. Data were gathered from physicians (n = 18), nurses (n = 30), and a nurse practitioner. Data were inductively analyzed using a thematic approach, and then constructs from normalization process theory (NPT) were deductively applied. NPT rendered a general framework to describe and assess how care teams perceive the implementation of teleneonatology and how they interact with this telemedicine service in their local setting.ResultsLocal health care professionals accepted teleneonatology as an important, helpful service, yet its implementation was perceived as both valuable and a threat to professional traditions. Utilization may depend on perceived benefit, mutual understanding of the guidelines, and expectations of use, and other relational, human, contextual, and system factors. Participants in this study agreed on the need for collective work to successfully integrate teleneonatology into the local practice.DiscussionsNPT uncovered that successful implementation of a teleneonatology program may be facilitated by strong interpersonal relationships among care teams, continuous programmatic training and education, and communicating the clinical value of teleneonatology, including its opportunities and benefits.

Background: Teleneonatology may improve the quality of high-risk newborn resuscitations performed by general providers in community settings. Variables that affect teleneonatology utilization have not been identified. Introduction: The objective of our mixed-methods study was to understand the barriers and facilitators experienced by local care providers who receive teleneonatology services. Materials and Methods: In October 2015, an electronic survey was sent to 349 teleneonatology participants at 6 community hospitals to assess user satisfaction, technology usability and acceptability, and impact on patient care. From December 2015 to June 2016, 49 participants were involved in focus groups and individual interviews to better understand barriers and facilitators of teleneonatology implementation. Qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic approach. Results: Survey response rate was 31.8% ( N = 111). Of 93 survey respondents, 88 (94.6%) agreed that teleneonatology was needed at their hospitals, and of 52 participants, 50 (96.2%) believed that teleneonatology consults were helpful. We identified multiple facilitators and barriers to program implementation in education and training, process and work flow, communication, and technology. Discussion: Local care teams believed that teleneonatology was valuable for connection to a remote neonatologist. Successful program implementation may be facilitated by communicating the value of teleneonatology, engaging local stakeholders in program training and education, maintaining supportive professional relationships, and designing simple, highly reliable clinical work flows. Conclusions: Teleneonatology is viewed as an innovative, valuable service by local care teams. The identified barriers and facilitators to program use should be considered when implementing a teleneonatology program.

BACKGROUNDTwo randomized trials have demonstrated improved progression‐free survival (PFS) with lenalidomide maintenance after autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma (MM). Overall survival (OS) results are conflicting, and quality‐of‐life (QOL) data are lacking. The authors conducted a systematic survey of patients with MM regarding what constitutes a meaningful benefit that would make burdens of maintenance treatments (toxicity and cost) acceptable.METHODSA self‐administered survey was mailed to 1159 consecutive, living patients who were evaluated at Mayo Clinic. The survey provided background information on the standard of care for MM and data on maintenance. Patients were asked to estimate the magnitude of OS benefit that would be acceptable for various degrees of toxicity and cost.RESULTSOf 1159 surveys sent, 886 patients (83.2%) responded, and 736 patients returned a completed survey (66% raw response rate). The most worrisome potential toxicity was identified as peripheral neuropathy by 27% of patients, cytopenias by 24%, deep vein thrombosis by 20%, fatigue by 15%, nausea by 8%, and diarrhea/constipation by 7%. If treatment was free, had no toxicity, and the OS benefit was ≤1 year, then 49% of patients indicated that they would choose maintenance; with moderate toxicity, this proportion decreased to 42%. Adding a treatment cost of $25 per month decreased the proportion that would choose maintenance to 39% of patients.CONCLUSIONSThe current results indicated that willingness to receive maintenance treatment declined when actual benefits were provided in concrete numeric terms compared with a general statement of PFS benefit. The authors also observed that the magnitude of benefit required to consider maintenance was affected by cost and toxicity. Cancer 2013;119:4308–4315. © 2013 American Cancer Society.