Intention of healthcare providers to use video-communication in terminal care: a cross-sectional study. Richard M. H. Evering, Marloes G. Postel, Harmieke van Os-Medendorp, Marloes Bults and Marjolein E. M. den Ouden BMC Palliative Care volume 21, Article number: 213 (2022) Cite this articleAbstractBackgroundInterdisciplinary collaboration between healthcare providers with regard to consultation, transfer and advice in terminal care is both important and challenging. The use of video communication in terminal care is low while in first-line healthcare it has the potential to improve quality of care, as it allows healthcare providers to assess the clinical situation in real time and determine collectively what care is needed. The aim of the present study is to explore the intention to use video communication by healthcare providers in interprofessional terminal care and predictors herein.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, an online survey was used to explore the intention to use video communication. The survey was sent to first-line healthcare providers involved in terminal care (at home, in hospices and/ or nursing homes) and consisted of 39 questions regarding demographics, experience with video communication and constructs of intention to use (i.e. Outcome expectancy, Effort expectancy, Attitude, Social influence, Facilitating conditions, Anxiety, Self-efficacy and Personal innovativeness) based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographics and experiences with video communication. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to give insight in the intention to use video communication and predictors herein.Results90 respondents were included in the analysis.65 (72%) respondents had experience with video communication within their profession, although only 15 respondents (17%) used it in terminal care. In general, healthcare providers intended to use video communication in terminal care (Mean (M) = 3.6; Standard Deviation (SD) = .88). The regression model was significant and explained 44% of the variance in intention to use video communication, with ‘Outcome expectancy’ and ‘Social influence’ as significant predictors.ConclusionsHealthcare providers have in general the intention to use video communication in interprofessional terminal care. However, their actual use in terminal care is low. ‘Outcome expectancy’ and ‘Social influence’ seem to be important predictors for intention to use video communication. This implicates the importance of informing healthcare providers, and their colleagues and significant others, about the usefulness and efficiency of video communication.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether a training programme is a feasible approach to facilitate occupational health professionals' (OHPs) use of knowledge and skills provided by a guideline.METHODS: Feasibility was evaluated by researching three aspects: 'acceptability', 'implementation' and 'limited efficacy'. Statements on acceptability and implementation were rated by OHPs on 10-point visual analogue scales after following the training programme (T2). Answers were analysed using descriptive statistics. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation were explored through open-ended questions at T2, which were qualitatively analysed. Limited efficacy was evaluated by measuring the level of knowledge and skills at baseline (T0), after reading the guideline (T1) and directly after completing the training programme (T2). Increase in knowledge and skills was analysed using a non-paramatric Friedman test and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank tests (two-tailed).RESULTS: The 38 OHPs found the training programme acceptable, judging that it was relevant (M: 8, SD: 1), increased their capability (M: 7, SD: 1), adhered to their daily practice (M: 8, SD: 1) and enhanced their guidance and assessment of people with a chronic disease (M: 8, SD: 1). OHPs found that it was feasible to implement the programme on a larger scale (M: 7, SD: 1) but foresaw barriers such as 'time', 'money' and organizational constraints. The reported facilitators were primarily related to the added value of the knowledge and skills to the OHPs' guidance and assessment, and that the programme taught them to apply the evidence in practice. Regarding limited efficacy, a significant increase was seen in OHPs' knowledge and skills over time (X2 (2) = 53.656, p < 0.001), with the median score improving from 6.3 (T0), 8.3 (T1) and 12.3 (T2). Post-hoc tests indicated a significant improvement between T0 and T1 (p < 0.001) and between T1 and T2 (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: The training programme was found to be a feasible approach to facilitate OHPs' use of knowledge and skills provided by the guideline, from the perspective of OHPs generally (acceptability and implementation) and with respect to their increase in knowledge and skills in particular (limited efficacy).
