Search results

Public perceptions on data sharing: key insights from the UK and the USA

Experiential caring and the mobilisation of peerhood in group clinics

The concept of ‘peer support’ has generated much interest in mainstream health services. In policy discourse, peer-based initiatives are often described as ‘empowering’ and seen as contributing to more ‘democratic’ and ‘holistic’ forms of care. Focusing on group clinics as one such example, this article challenges the assumption that peer-based initiatives represent a straightforward and unequivocal ‘good’ when embedded in clinical care. We draw on qualitative data from three studies (2016–2025), including 118 interviews and ethnographic observation in 59 in-person, remote, and hybrid group clinics for diabetes and menopause at 5 primary and secondary care sites in England. Adopting a sociomaterial lens, we uncover how different forms and practices of peerhood emerge (or not) in the circumstances through which these clinics are materialised. We show how biomedical artefacts (e.g. diabetes test results, menopause symptom lists) used as part of consulting play a key role in constituting forms of affiliation and differentiation between patients, in turn determining whether and what forms of peer ‘support’ (e.g. disciplinary, affirmative) are accomplished. We go on to explore how being presented as a peer as part of clinical consulting brings about new roles and responsibilities for patients, and introduce the term ‘experiential caring’ to denote a new mode of consulting that mobilises roles, practices, and subjectivities associated with peerhood.

What are the unintended patient safety consequences of healthcare technologies? A qualitative study among patients, carers and healthcare providers

Objective To identify patient-safety-related unintended consequences of healthcare technologies experienced by their primary users: patients, carers and healthcare providers (HCPs). Design Qualitative study based on data collected in online focus groups. Transcripts were analysed inductively after each focus group using reflexive thematic analysis, focusing on identifying unintended consequences of healthcare technologies with implications for patient safety. Patient safety was broadly conceptualised to include a more subjective concept of â € feeling safe' as well as risks of actual harm. Setting Patient/public and HCP participants from the UK with experience in healthcare technologies were recruited using a mixture of purposive, convenience and snowball sampling. Participants 40 participants (29 patients/public, 11 HCPs) took part in 5 focus groups between November 2021 and February 2022. Results We identified five main themes of unintended consequences with implications for patient safety: inequity of access, increased end-user burden, loss of the human element of healthcare, over-reliance on technology and unclear responsibilities. Both groups of participants identified unintended consequences directly affecting patients; HCPs also described those affecting themselves. Some unintended consequences are described in previous literature, including alert fatigue, the â € illusion of communication', reduced opportunities for face-To-face interactions and increased end-user burden. Others are potentially novel, including patients' psychological dependence on technologies, â € gaming' of data entry and incorrect interpretation of health data. Conclusions Drawing on the perspectives of patients/public as well as HCPs, we identified five areas of patient-safety-related unintended consequences associated with healthcare technologies. These should be considered when developing tools to identify and mitigate the patient-safety-related unintended consequences of healthcare technologies.

Working knowledge, uncertainty and ontological politics: An ethnography of UK long covid clinics

Long covid (persistent COVID-19) is a new disease with contested aetiology and variable prognosis. We report a 2-year ethnography of UK long covid clinics. Using a preformative lens, we show that multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) built working knowledge based on shared practices, mutual trust, distributed cognition (e.g. emails, record entries), relational knowledge of what was at stake for the patient, and harnessing uncertainty to open new discursive spaces. Most long covid MDTs performed the working knowledge of ‘rehabilitation’, a linked set of practices oriented to ensuring that the patient understood and strove to ‘correct’ maladaptive physiological responses (e.g. through breathing exercises) and pursued recovery goals, supported by physiotherapists, psychologists and generalist clinicians. Some MDTs with a higher proportion of doctors (e.g. cardiologists, neurologists, immunologists) enacted the working knowledge of ‘microscopic damage’, seeking to elucidate and rectify long covid’s underlying molecular and cellular pathology. They justified non-standard investigations and medication in selected patients by co-constructing an evidentiary narrative based on biological mechanisms. Working knowledge was ontologically concordant within MDTs but sometimes discordant between MDTs. Overt ontological conflict occurred mostly when patients attending ‘rehabilitation’ clinics invoked the working knowledge of microscopic damage that had been generated and circulated in online support communities.

Use and impact of virtual primary care on quality and safety: The public's perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: With the onset of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), primary care has swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to virtual care, yet it remains largely unknown how this has impacted the quality and safety of care. We aim to evaluate patient use of virtual primary care models during COVID-19, including change in uptake, perceived impact on the quality and safety of care and willingness of future use. METHODOLOGY: An online cross-sectional survey was administered to the public across the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Germany. McNemar tests were conducted to test pre- and post-pandemic differences in uptake for each technology. One-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine patient experience ratings and perceived impacts on healthcare quality and safety across demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 6326) reported an increased use of telephone consultations ( + 6.3%, p 

Evaluating video and hybrid group consultations in general practice: mixed-methods, participatory study protocol (TOGETHER 2)

Background: General practice is facing an unprecedented challenge in managing the consequences of the pandemic. In the midst of a policy drive to balance remote and in-person service provision, substantial workload pressures remain, together with increasing prevalence of long-term conditions, and declining staff numbers and morale. To address these challenges, some practices in the UK have been delivering video and hybrid group consultations (VHGCs) providing clinical care to multiple patients at the same time. Despite positive initial findings and enthusiasm, there are still gaps in our understanding of the influence VHGCs have on patient experience, healthcare utilisation, quality, safety, equity and affordability. Objectives: To generate an in-depth understanding of VHGCs for chronic conditions in general practice, surface assumptions and sociotechnical dynamics, inform practice and extend theorisation. Methods: Mixed-methods, multi-site research study using co-design and participatory methods, from qualitative, quantitative and cost-related perspectives. WP1 includes a national, cross-sectional survey on VHGC provision across the UK. In WP2 we will engage patients and general practice staff in co-design workshops to develop VHGC models with emphasis on digital inclusion and equity. In WP3 we will carry out a mixed-methods process evaluation in up to 10 GP practices across England (5 sites already running VHGCs and 5 comparison sites). Qualitative methods will include interviews, focus groups and ethnographic observation to examine the experiences of patients, carers, clinical and non-clinical NHS staff, commissioners and policy-makers. Quantitative methods will examine the impact of VHGCs on healthcare utilisation in primary and secondary care, patient satisfaction, engagement and activation. We will also assess value for money of group and individual care models from a health economics perspective. Conclusions: We aim to develop transferable learning on sociotechnical change in healthcare delivery, using VHGCs as an exemplar of technology-supported innovation. Findings will also inform the design of a future study.

Identifying benefits and concerns with using digital health services during COVID-19: Evidence from a hospital-based patient survey

Despite large-scale adoption during COVID-19, patient perceptions on the benefits and potential risks with receiving care through digital technologies have remained largely unexplored. A quantitative content analysis of responses to a questionnaire (N = 6766) conducted at a multi-site acute trust in London (UK), was adopted to identify commonly reported benefits and concerns. Patients reported a range of promising benefits beyond immediate usage during COVID-19, including ease of access; support for disease and care management; improved timeliness of access and treatment; and better prioritisation of healthcare resources. However, in addition to known risks such as data security and inequity in access, our findings also illuminate some less studied concerns, including perceptions of compromised safety; negative impacts on patient-clinician relationships; and difficulties in interpreting health information provided through electronic health records and mHealth apps. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Addressing racial and ethnic inequities in data-driven health technologies

Do national policies for complaint handling in English hospitals support quality improvement? Lessons from a case study

Objectives: A range of public inquiries in the English National Health Service have indicated repeating failings in complaint handling, and patients are often left dissatisfied. The complex, bureaucratic nature of complaints systems is often cited as an obstacle to meaningful investigation and learning, but a detailed examination of how such bureaucratic rules, regulations, and infrastructure shape complaint handling, and where change is most needed, remains relatively unexplored. We sought to examine how national policies structure local practices of complaint handling, how they are understood by those responsible for enacting them, and if there are any discrepancies between policies-as-intended and their reality in local practice. Design: Case study involving staff interviews and documentary analysis. Setting: A large acute and multi-site NHS Trust in England. Participants: Clinical, managerial, complaints, and patient advocacy staff involved in complaint handling at the participating NHS Trust (n=20). Main outcome measures: Not applicable. Results: Findings illustrate four areas of practice where national policies and regulations can have adverse consequences within local practices, and partly function to undermine an improvement-focused approach to complaints. These include muddled routes for raising formal complaints, investigative procedures structured to scrutinize the ‘validity’ of complaints, futile data collection systems, and adverse incentives and workarounds resulting from bureaucratic performance targets. Conclusion: This study demonstrates how national policies and regulations for complaint handling can impede, rather than promote, quality improvement in local settings. Accordingly, we propose a number of necessary reforms, including patient involvement in complaints investigations, the establishment of independent investigation bodies, and more meaningful data analysis strategies to uncover and address systemic causes behind recurring complaints.

Patient-clinician communication research for 21st century health care.

Getting the whole story: Integrating patient complaints and staff reports of unsafe care

Objective: It is increasingly recognized that patient safety requires heterogeneous insights from a range of stakeholders, yet incident reporting systems in health care still primarily rely on staff perspectives. This paper examines the potential of combining insights from patient complaints and staff incident reports for a more comprehensive understanding of the causes and severity of harm. Methods: Using five years of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data at a large multi-site hospital in London (in the United Kingdom), this study conducted retrospective patient-level data linkage to identify overlapping reports. Using a combination of quantitative coding and in-depth qualitative analysis, we then compared level of harm reported, identified descriptions of adjacent events missed by the other party and examined combined narratives of mutually identified events. Results: Incidents where complaints and incident reports overlapped (n = 446, reported in 7.6%’ of all complaints and 0.6% of all incident reports) represented a small but critical area of investigation, with significantly higher rates of Serious Incidents and severe harm. Linked complaints described greater harm from safety incidents in 60% of cases, reported many surrounding safety events missed by staff (n = 582), and provided contesting stories of why problems occurred in 46% cases, and complementary accounts in 26% cases. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the value of using patient complaints to supplement, test, and challenge staff reports, including to provide greater insight on the many potential factors that may give rise to unsafe care. Accordingly, we propose that a more holistic analysis of critical safety incidents can be achieved through combining heterogeneous data from different viewpoints, such as through the integration of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data.

Learning from complaints in healthcare: a realist review of academic literature, policy evidence and front-line insights.

INTRODUCTION: A global rise in patient complaints has been accompanied by growing research to effectively analyse complaints for safer, more patient-centric care. Most patients and families complain to improve the quality of healthcare, yet progress has been complicated by a system primarily designed for case-by-case complaint handling. AIM: To understand how to effectively integrate patient-centric complaint handling with quality monitoring and improvement. METHOD: Literature screening and patient codesign shaped the review's aim in the first stage of this three-stage review. Ten sources were searched including academic databases and policy archives. In the second stage, 13 front-line experts were interviewed to develop initial practice-based programme theory. In the third stage, evidence identified in the first stage was appraised based on rigour and relevance, and selected to refine programme theory focusing on what works, why and under what circumstances. RESULTS: A total of 74 academic and 10 policy sources were included. The review identified 12 mechanisms to achieve: patient-centric complaint handling and system-wide quality improvement. The complaint handling pathway includes (1) access of information; (2) collaboration with support and advocacy services; (3) staff attitude and signposting; (4) bespoke responding; and (5) public accountability. The improvement pathway includes (6) a reliable coding taxonomy; (7) standardised training and guidelines; (8) a centralised informatics system; (9) appropriate data sampling; (10) mixed-methods spotlight analysis; (11) board priorities and leadership; and (12) just culture. DISCUSSION: If healthcare settings are better supported to report, analyse and use complaints data in a standardised manner, complaints could impact on care quality in important ways. This review has established a range of evidence-based, short-term recommendations to achieve this.

Patient removals: time to rethink exclusion in general practice?

Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: Multimethod qualitative study combining Safety i and Safety II analysis

Background Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them. Setting and sample UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023. Methods Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts. Results Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions. Conclusion While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.

Evaluating video and hybrid group consultations in general practice: mixed-methods, participatory study protocol (TOGETHER 2)

Background: General practice is facing an unprecedented challenge in managing the consequences of the pandemic. In the midst of a policy drive to balance remote and in-person service provision, substantial workload pressures remain, together with increasing prevalence of long-term conditions, and declining staff numbers and morale. To address these challenges, some practices in the UK have been delivering video and hybrid group consultations (VHGCs). Despite positive initial findings and enthusiasm, there are still gaps in our understanding of the influence VHGCs have on patient experience, healthcare utilisation, quality, safety, equity and affordability. Objectives To generate an in-depth understanding of VHGCs for chronic conditions in general practice, surface assumptions and sociotechnical dynamics, inform practice and extend theorisation. Methods Mixed-methods, multi-site research study using co-design and participatory methods, from qualitative, quantitative and cost-related perspectives. WP1 includes a national, cross-sectional survey on VHGC provision across the UK. In WP2 we will engage patients and general practice staff in co-design workshops to develop VHGC models with emphasis on digital inclusion and equity. In WP3 we will carry out a mixed-methods process evaluation in up to 10 GP practices across England (5 sites already running VHGCs and 5 comparison sites). Qualitative methods will include interviews, focus groups and ethnographic observation to examine the experiences of patients, carers, clinical and non-clinical NHS staff, commissioners and policy-makers. Quantitative methods will examine the impact of VHGCs on healthcare utilisation in primary and secondary care, patient satisfaction, engagement and activation. We will also assess value for money of group and individual care models from a health economics perspective. Conclusions We aim to develop transferable learning on sociotechnical change in healthcare delivery, using VHGCs as an exemplar of technology-supported innovation. Findings will also inform the design of a future study.

Digitally Enabled Care in Diverse Environments (DECIDE): protocol for a programme of rapid evaluation of technology-enabled remote monitoring in health and social care

Background: There is considerable interest in technology-enabled remote monitoring in the UK. The aim is to respond to system pressures and improve access, experience and quality of care. There is an urgent need for process, outcome and impact evaluations of interventions at various stages of development and implementation to address evidence gaps around adoption, spread, sustainability and inequalities. Aim DECIDE (Digitally Enabled Care in Diverse Environments) is a centre for rapid evaluation of technology-enabled remote monitoring funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (2023 to 2026). It aims to support service users, service commissioners and providers of remote monitoring services, to enable high quality care. Example questions include: Is the technology-enabled remote monitoring innovation needed and, if so, for whom? How are technology-enabled care pathways implemented, and what are associated outcomes and impacts? What are the opportunities and challenges for sustainability, scale-up and spread? Methods A range of qualitative, quantitative and economic methods will be used. Exact methods and questions will be dependent on the focus, scope and scale of each evaluation. Evaluations will be informed by relevant theory, including the Non-Adoption, Abandonment and the challenges to Spread, Scale-up and Sustainability of technological innovation in health and care (NASSS) framework. A User Advisory Group and External Steering Committee, both with diverse voices, will help shape evaluation design, implementation and dissemination. Project-led dissemination will ensure timely sharing of insights and support impact. Conclusion Evaluations will advance understanding of when and for whom technology-enabled remote monitoring innovation is needed; how it works and how factors related to the intervention, implementation process and wider context influence adoption; associated outcomes and impacts, whether and how these tackle inequalities; and potential challenges to scale and spread. We aim to inform decision-making by policymakers, commissioners, providers, patients/service users and researchers.

Social and Ethical Aspects of Remote and Hybrid Care in the Special Allocation Scheme in general practice (SEARCH): A mixed methods feasibility study protocol

Background Despite the growing body of research on remote primary care and access for (digitally) excluded groups, very little is known about care for patients who have been deliberately excluded from mainstream services. The ‘Special Allocation Scheme’ (SAS) in England provides GP services to patients who have been excluded from their GP practice after being reported for violent behaviour. Patients registered on SAS are likely to be offered remote services, in part because patients are often placed in an ‘out-of-area’ SAS practice. Our aim is to find out more about the needs of patients on the SAS, whether and when it is appropriate to offer remote options, and who these options might benefit or disadvantage. We also aim to develop safe, ethical, and meaningful ways to involve patients with experience on the scheme in research and service development. Methods Workstream 1 includes a national scoping survey of SAS provision across England. Workstream 2 comprises of three ethnographic case studies of SAS services, including observation and interviews with patients, NHS staff and national/regional decision makers. Workstream 3 involves two codesign workshops with patients, researchers, clinicians, support staff and third sector care providers to co-produce a set of reflections and best practices to inform future research and service redesign in this context. An iterative and participatory-informed PPIE approach is adopted throughout, involving patients and other stakeholders from early conceptualisation to study design, analysis and codesign of outputs. Conclusions Whilst remote solutions can improve access to primary care for some, they are not suitable for every patient population and can widen health inequalities. This is a novel study in a critically under-researched area of service delivery with clear practical and ethical implications for practice. Findings will develop understanding and transferable learning for SAS delivery and inform the design of a future study.

Implementation and use of technology-enabled remote monitoring for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a rapid qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease affects around 2% United Kingdom population. Timely identification of patients at risk of deterioration is crucial. Technology-enabled remote monitoring may help prevent deterioration, support chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients at home and appropriate use of National Health Service services. Evidence on the adoption, use and experience of technology-enabled remote monitoring in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease pathway is currently limited, impeding efforts to inform effective technology-enabled remote monitoring design and implementation. OBJECTIVE: To understand what supports good practice in the implementation and use of technology-enabled remote monitoring in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care pathway and draw transferable lessons that can inform spread and scale up. DESIGN AND METHODS: Rapid evaluation, combining qualitative interviews, focused case studies and stakeholder workshops. Patient and public voices informed evaluation design, conduct and co-design of resources. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Scoping interviews with a purposive sample of 29 national and regional stakeholders informed selection of four case study sites involved in delivering technology-enabled remote monitoring for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Case studies combined interviews with 19 staff and review of 18 documents. Analysis was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment and challenges to scale-up, spread and sustainability of technology framework. A stakeholder workshop (n = 23 participants) refined emerging findings. Interviews with respiratory patients and a co-design workshop informed development of patient-facing resources. RESULTS: Technology-enabled remote monitoring for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease occurs along a continuum of scope and scale. Technology-enabled care pathways have some common overarching features, but variation is seen across contexts and patient cohorts. Technology-enabled remote monitoring services influence care provision on a system level. Effective implementation is underpinned by service characteristics affecting its use, technology functionalities and organisational capabilities and capacities. Technology-enabled remote monitoring success also depends on defining the data-driven purpose and value proposition, ensuring buy-in, organising the workforce and workload in sustainable ways, data and IT platform interoperability, support for patients in using the service safely and appropriately, utilising existing resources, team buy-in, financial resourcing and clear policy incentives, and openness to ongoing learning. Patients value technology-enabled remote monitoring services that help them feel more connected to healthcare providers and provide timely information and support. Healthcare staff value high-quality patient care, services value affordability and sustainable workload impact. LIMITATIONS: Small-scale qualitative evaluation conducted at pace. CONCLUSIONS: Technology can support remote monitoring but is only one aspect of an effective technology-enabled remote monitoring service. It needs to be embedded in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease pathway and align with service needs and existing capacity in cost-effective ways and with proportionate oversight of quality and safety. Decision-makers need to consider which aspects of the technology are essential, how they can be effectively embedded and supported by an appropriately equipped workforce, and needs of different patient cohorts. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for evidence on longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of technology-enabled remote monitoring for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, impact on patient and staff experience, and issues of equity of access. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are needed to appreciate varied technology and evolving use in different settings/groups. FUNDING: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR154231.

Ten years of asthma admissions to adult critical care units in England and Wales

Objectives: To describe the patient demographics, outcomes and trends of admissions with acute severe asthma admitted to adult critical care units in England and Wales. Design: 10-year, retrospective analysis of a national audit database. Setting: Secondary care: adult, general critical care units in the UK. Participants: 830 808 admissions to adult, general critical care units. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Demographic data including age and sex, whether the patient was invasively ventilated or not, length of stay (LOS; both in the critical care unit and acute hospital), survival (both critical care unit and acute hospital) and time trends across the 10-year period. Results: Over the 10-year period, there were 11 948 (1.4% of total) admissions with asthma to adult critical care units in England and Wales. Among them 67.5% were female and 32.5% were male (RR F:M 2.1; 95% CI 2.0 to 2.1). Median LOS in the critical care unit was 1.8 days (IQR 0.9-3.8). Median LOS in the acute hospital was 7 days (IQR 4-14). Critical care unit survival rate was 95.5%. Survival at discharge from hospital was 93.3%. There was an increase in admissions to adult critical care units by an average of 4.7% (95% CI 2.8 to 6.7)/year. Conclusions: Acute asthma represents a modest burden of work for adult critical care units in England and Wales. Demographic patterns for admission to critical care unit mirror those of severe asthma in the general adult community. The number of critical care admissions with asthma are rising, although we were unable to discern whether this represents a true increase in the incidence of acute asthma or asthma severity.

The impact of telehealthcare on the quality and safety of care: A systematic overview

Background: Telehealthcare involves the use of information and communication technologies to deliver healthcare at a distance and to support patient self-management through remote monitoring and personalised feedback. It is timely to scrutinise the evidence regarding the benefits, risks and costs of telehealthcare. Methods and Findings: Two reviewers searched for relevant systematic reviews published from January 1997 to November 2011 in: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and PakMed. Reviewers undertook independent quality assessment of studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for systematic reviews. 1,782 review articles were identified, from which 80 systematic reviews were selected for inclusion. These covered a range of telehealthcare models involving both synchronous (live) and asynchronous (store-and-forward) interactions between provider and patients. Many studies showed no differences in outcomes between telehealthcare and usual care. Several reviews highlighted the large number of short-term (<12 months) feasibility studies with under 20 participants. Effects of telehealthcare on health service indicators were reported in several reviews, particularly reduced hospitalisations. The reported clinical effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions for patients with long-term conditions appeared to be greatest in those with more severe disease at high-risk of hospitalisation and death. The failure of many studies to adequately describe the intervention makes it difficult to disentangle the contributions of technological and human/organisational factors on the outcomes reported. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare remains sparse. Patient safety considerations were absent from the evaluative telehealthcare literature. Conclusions: Policymakers and planners need to be aware that investment in telehealthcare will not inevitably yield clinical or economic benefits. It is likely that the greatest gains will be achieved for patients at highest risk of serious outcomes. There is a need for longer-term studies in order to determine whether the benefits demonstrated in time limited trials are sustained. © 2013 Mclean et al.