Diabetes Remote Monitoring Program Implementation: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Delivery Strategies, Barriers and Facilitators

Elizabeth B Kirkland; Emily Johnson; Chloe Bays; Justin Marsden; Rebecca Verdin; Dee Ford; Kathryn King; Katherine R Sterba

doi:10.1089/tmr.2022.0038

Diabetes Remote Monitoring Program Implementation: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Delivery Strategies, Barriers and Facilitators

Telemed Rep. 2023 Mar 20;4(1):30-43. doi: 10.1089/tmr.2022.0038. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Elizabeth B Kirkland¹, Emily Johnson², Chloe Bays¹, Justin Marsden¹, Rebecca Verdin³, Dee Ford¹, Kathryn King⁴, Katherine R Sterba⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
² College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
³ Center for Telehealth, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
⁴ Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
⁵ Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

Abstract

Background: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) is being increasingly utilized as a type of telemedicine modality to improve access to quality health care, although there are documented challenges with this type of innovation. The goals of this study were to characterize clinic delivery strategies for an RPM program and to examine barriers and facilitators to program implementation in a variety of community clinic settings.

Methods: Primary data were collected via individual and small group interviews and surveys of clinical staff from South Carolina primary care clinics participating in an RPM program for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 in 2019. We used a parallel convergent mixed methods study design with six South Carolina primary care outpatient clinics currently participating in a diabetes remote monitoring program. Clinic staff participants completed surveys to define delivery strategies and experiences with the program in a variety of clinical settings. Interviews of clinic staff examined barriers and facilitators to program implementation guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Quantitative survey data were summarized via descriptive statistics. Qualitative data from interviews were analyzed in a template analysis approach with primary themes identified and organized by two independent coders and guided by the CFIR. Quantitative and qualitative findings were then synthesized in a final step.

Results: RPM program delivery strategies varied across clinic, patient population, and program domains, largely affected by staffing, leadership buy-in, resources, patient needs, and inter-site communication. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were linked to similar factors that influenced delivery strategy.

Discussion: RPM programs were implemented in a variety of different clinic settings with program delivery tailored to fit within each clinic's workflow and meet patients' needs. By addressing the barriers identified in this study with focused training and support strategies, delivery processes can improve implementation of RPM programs and thus benefit patient outcomes in rural and community settings.

Keywords: implementation science; primary care; program evaluation; qualitative research; telemedicine.