产科医生对高血压疾病远程监测项目的经验

Kortney F. James PhD, RN , Molly Waymouth MPH , Gabriela Alvarado PhD , Ateev Mehrotra MD , Lori Uscher-Pines PhD
{"title":"产科医生对高血压疾病远程监测项目的经验","authors":"Kortney F. James PhD, RN ,&nbsp;Molly Waymouth MPH ,&nbsp;Gabriela Alvarado PhD ,&nbsp;Ateev Mehrotra MD ,&nbsp;Lori Uscher-Pines PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.xagr.2025.100513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Despite widespread use in primary care, remote patient monitoring (RPM) in obstetrics for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy remain limited. Little is known about the specific modalities, perceived impact, and integration of RPM into standard practice in obstetrics.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To explore obstetricians’ experiences with RPM for hypertensive disorders in the perinatal period and barriers in implementation, and to identify promising practices to overcome these barriers.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><div>This qualitative study, conducted from September to October 2024, involved semi-structured interviews with 20 obstetricians across the United States, who represented different practice settings and RPM program models. We developed a qualitative codebook and conducted thematic analysis informed by the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Five key themes emerged from interviews: (1) Barriers to Engagement; (2) Perceptions of Clinical Benefit; (3) Financial Hurdles in RPM Utilization; (4) Navigating Workflow and Data Challenges; and (5) Liability Concerns in RPM. RPM programs varied substantially in their eligibility criteria, timing within the perinatal period, data transfer methods, staffing models, and workflow. The major barriers included financial constraints (eg, insurance coverage and equipment costs), complex workflows, liability concerns related to 24/7 monitoring and response, and patient-level barriers (eg, technology literacy, language, and anxiety). Obstetricians used several strategies to overcome these challenges, including having patients bring their cuffs to the office to validate accuracy, assigning dedicated staff or partnering with a vendor to streamline workflows, coupling RPM with additional services like pregnancy education to improve adherence, and training staff so not all issues (eg, medication titration) require escalation to obstetricians. Despite the challenges, participants generally valued RPM and observed benefits in both clinical outcomes and patient engagement.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>These findings highlight the need for context-specific approaches to enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of RPM for managing hypertensive disorders in the perinatal period.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72141,"journal":{"name":"AJOG global reports","volume":"5 3","pages":"Article 100513"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Obstetricians’ experiences with remote monitoring programs for hypertensive disorders\",\"authors\":\"Kortney F. James PhD, RN ,&nbsp;Molly Waymouth MPH ,&nbsp;Gabriela Alvarado PhD ,&nbsp;Ateev Mehrotra MD ,&nbsp;Lori Uscher-Pines PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xagr.2025.100513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Despite widespread use in primary care, remote patient monitoring (RPM) in obstetrics for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy remain limited. Little is known about the specific modalities, perceived impact, and integration of RPM into standard practice in obstetrics.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To explore obstetricians’ experiences with RPM for hypertensive disorders in the perinatal period and barriers in implementation, and to identify promising practices to overcome these barriers.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><div>This qualitative study, conducted from September to October 2024, involved semi-structured interviews with 20 obstetricians across the United States, who represented different practice settings and RPM program models. We developed a qualitative codebook and conducted thematic analysis informed by the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Five key themes emerged from interviews: (1) Barriers to Engagement; (2) Perceptions of Clinical Benefit; (3) Financial Hurdles in RPM Utilization; (4) Navigating Workflow and Data Challenges; and (5) Liability Concerns in RPM. RPM programs varied substantially in their eligibility criteria, timing within the perinatal period, data transfer methods, staffing models, and workflow. The major barriers included financial constraints (eg, insurance coverage and equipment costs), complex workflows, liability concerns related to 24/7 monitoring and response, and patient-level barriers (eg, technology literacy, language, and anxiety). Obstetricians used several strategies to overcome these challenges, including having patients bring their cuffs to the office to validate accuracy, assigning dedicated staff or partnering with a vendor to streamline workflows, coupling RPM with additional services like pregnancy education to improve adherence, and training staff so not all issues (eg, medication titration) require escalation to obstetricians. Despite the challenges, participants generally valued RPM and observed benefits in both clinical outcomes and patient engagement.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>These findings highlight the need for context-specific approaches to enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of RPM for managing hypertensive disorders in the perinatal period.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72141,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJOG global reports\",\"volume\":\"5 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100513\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJOG global reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577825000747\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOG global reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577825000747","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管在初级保健中广泛使用,但远程患者监测(RPM)在产科妊娠期高血压疾病中的应用仍然有限。关于具体的方式,感知的影响,以及将RPM纳入产科标准实践的了解甚少。目的探讨产科医生在围产期高血压疾病中使用RPM的经验和实施中存在的障碍,并找出克服这些障碍的可行方法。这项定性研究于2024年9月至10月进行,涉及对美国20名产科医生的半结构化访谈,他们代表了不同的实践环境和RPM项目模型。我们开发了一个定性代码本,并根据覆盖面、有效性、采用、实施和维护(RE-AIM)框架进行了专题分析。访谈中出现了五个关键主题:(1)参与障碍;(2)临床获益感知;(3) RPM利用中的资金障碍;(4)应对工作流和数据挑战;(5) RPM中的责任问题。RPM计划在其资格标准、围产期时间、数据传输方法、人员配置模型和工作流程方面存在很大差异。主要障碍包括财务限制(例如,保险覆盖范围和设备成本)、复杂的工作流程、与24/7全天候监测和响应相关的责任问题以及患者层面的障碍(例如,技术素养、语言和焦虑)。产科医生使用了几种策略来克服这些挑战,包括让患者将袖口带到办公室验证准确性,分配专门的工作人员或与供应商合作以简化工作流程,将RPM与其他服务(如妊娠教育)结合起来以提高依从性,以及培训工作人员,以便不是所有问题(例如药物滴定)都需要向产科医生报告。尽管存在挑战,但参与者普遍重视RPM,并在临床结果和患者参与方面观察到益处。结论这些发现强调需要针对具体情况的方法来提高围产期高血压疾病的可及性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Obstetricians’ experiences with remote monitoring programs for hypertensive disorders

Background

Despite widespread use in primary care, remote patient monitoring (RPM) in obstetrics for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy remain limited. Little is known about the specific modalities, perceived impact, and integration of RPM into standard practice in obstetrics.

Objective

To explore obstetricians’ experiences with RPM for hypertensive disorders in the perinatal period and barriers in implementation, and to identify promising practices to overcome these barriers.

Study Design

This qualitative study, conducted from September to October 2024, involved semi-structured interviews with 20 obstetricians across the United States, who represented different practice settings and RPM program models. We developed a qualitative codebook and conducted thematic analysis informed by the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.

Results

Five key themes emerged from interviews: (1) Barriers to Engagement; (2) Perceptions of Clinical Benefit; (3) Financial Hurdles in RPM Utilization; (4) Navigating Workflow and Data Challenges; and (5) Liability Concerns in RPM. RPM programs varied substantially in their eligibility criteria, timing within the perinatal period, data transfer methods, staffing models, and workflow. The major barriers included financial constraints (eg, insurance coverage and equipment costs), complex workflows, liability concerns related to 24/7 monitoring and response, and patient-level barriers (eg, technology literacy, language, and anxiety). Obstetricians used several strategies to overcome these challenges, including having patients bring their cuffs to the office to validate accuracy, assigning dedicated staff or partnering with a vendor to streamline workflows, coupling RPM with additional services like pregnancy education to improve adherence, and training staff so not all issues (eg, medication titration) require escalation to obstetricians. Despite the challenges, participants generally valued RPM and observed benefits in both clinical outcomes and patient engagement.

Conclusion

These findings highlight the need for context-specific approaches to enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of RPM for managing hypertensive disorders in the perinatal period.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AJOG global reports
AJOG global reports Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Perinatology, Pediatrics and Child Health, Urology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信