Implementation of a virtual ward as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic
Katherine Schultz A E , Helen Vickery B , Katrina Campbell C D , Mary Wheeldon A , Leah Barrett-Beck B and Elizabeth Rushbrook BA Brighton Health Campus, 19th Avenue, Brighton, Qld, Australia. Email: Mary.Wheeldon@health.qld.gov.au
B Medical Services, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Campus, Bowen Bridget Road, Herston, Qld, Australia. Email: Helen.Vickery2@health.qld.gov.au; Leah.Barrett-Beck@health.qld.gov.au; Elizabeth.Rushbrook@health.qld.gov.au
C Healthcare Excellence and Innovation, Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Lobby 1 Citilink, 3 Campbell Street, Herston, Qld, Australia. Email: Katrina.Campbell@health.qld.gov.au
D Menzies Health Institute Queensland, G40 Griffith Health Centre, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Qld, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email: Katherine.Schultz@health.qld.gov.au
Australian Health Review 45(4) 433-441 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH20240
Submitted: 5 September 2020 Accepted: 8 December 2020 Published: 12 April 2021
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2021 Open Access CC BY
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the implementation of a virtual ward as a COVID-19 hospital avoidance response strategy and identify opportunities for improvement and future applicability.
Methods A mixed-method observational study was conducted of a centralised virtual ward, which operated in a large metropolitan Australian health service from 23 March to 1 June 2020.
Results In total, 238 unique patients were admitted to the virtual ward, accounting for 264 individual admission episodes and 2451 virtual bed days. Twenty (7.6%) episodes resulted in transfer to hospital and 136 patients provided responses to feedback surveys and reported their experience as very good (61.7%, n = 87) or good (34.8%, n = 49). Implementation success was high, with the model widely accepted and adopted across the health service. The service delivery model was considered to be low-cost in comparison to inpatient hospital-based care.
Conclusions Overall, as a rapidly developed and implemented low-tech model of care, the virtual ward was found to provide an effective, accessible and low-cost solution to managing low-acuity COVID-19-positive patients in the community. This model should be considered in future pandemics as a hospital-avoidance response, with the ability to minimise patient-to-healthcare worker transmission, reduce personal protective equipment use and enhance patient adherence with isolation requirements. Targeted remote telemonitoring should be considered as a future modification to improve patient care.
What is known about this topic? Virtual wards aim to reduce hospital demand by providing hospital-level care in community settings such as the patients’ home. The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rapid increase in the utilisation of virtual wards as an acute healthcare response that facilitates contactless care of infectious patients. Despite this rapid adoption, there is limited literature on the effectiveness of virtual ward models of care in a pandemic context.
What does this paper add? This study provides a detailed description of the implementation of a virtual ward in a large metropolitan health service. It evaluates the effectiveness of the virtual ward as a COVID-19 response strategy and identifies opportunities for improvement and future applicability. This study contributes to the growing body of literature on the COVID-19 healthcare response and virtual wards.
What are the implications for practitioners? This study details the implementation of a virtual ward and highlights potential facilitators and barriers to successful implementation and sustained applicability. Findings provide a comparative benchmark for other health services implementing virtual wards as a pandemic response strategy.
Keywords: COVID-19, models of care, pandemic, evaluation, response strategy, virtual care, virtual ward, RE-AIM, CFIR, implementation.
References
[1] McGrail KM, Ahuja MA, Leaver CA. Virtual visits and patient-centered care: results of a patient survey and observational study. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19 e177| Virtual visits and patient-centered care: results of a patient survey and observational study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28550006PubMed |
[2] Shaw J, Jamieson T, Agarwal P, Griffin B, Wong I, Bhatia RS. Virtual care policy recommendations for patient-centred primary care: findings of a consensus policy dialogue using a nominal group technique. J Telemed Telecare 2018; 24 608–15.
| Virtual care policy recommendations for patient-centred primary care: findings of a consensus policy dialogue using a nominal group technique.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28945161PubMed |
[3] Lewis G. Case study: virtual wards at Croydon Primary Care Trust. 2006. Available at: http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_document/PARR-croydon-pct-case-study.pdf [verified 1 June 2020].
[4] Lewis G, Bardsley M, Vaithianathan R, Steventon A, Georghiou T, Billings J, Do Dixon J. ‘Virtual wards’ reduce rates of unplanned hospital admissions, and at what cost? A research protocol using propensity matched controls. Int J Integr Care 2011; 11 e079
| ‘Virtual wards’ reduce rates of unplanned hospital admissions, and at what cost? A research protocol using propensity matched controls.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21949489PubMed |
[5] Moore G, Du Toit A, Jameson B, Liu A, Harris M. Rapid evidence scan: the effectiveness of virtual hospital models of care. 2020. Available at: https://www.saxinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/20.04_Rapid-Evidence-Scan_The-effectiveness-of-virtual-hospitals.pdf [verified 8 January 2021].
[6] World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): situation reports June–August 2020. Report nos.: 162–194. 2020. Available at: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports [verified 8 January 2021].
[7] Hutchings O, Dearing C, Jagers D, Shaw M, Raffan F, Jones A, Taggart R, Sinclair T, Anderson T, Ritchie AG. Virtual health care for community management of patients with COVID-19. medRxiv 2020;
| Virtual health care for community management of patients with COVID-19.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Thornton J. The ‘virtual wards’ supporting patients with COVID-19 in the community. BMJ 2020; 369 m2119
| The ‘virtual wards’ supporting patients with COVID-19 in the community.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32499317PubMed |
[9] Australian Government Department of Health, Communicable Diseases Network Australia (CDNA). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): CDNA national guidelines for public health units. Version 2.4. 2020. Available at: https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cdna-song-novel-coronavirus.htm [verified 30 March 2020].
[10] Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999; 89 1322–7.
| Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 10474547PubMed |
[11] Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011; 38 65–76.
| Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20957426PubMed |
[12] Greenhalgh T, Maylor H, Shaw S, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Betton V, Nelissen N, Gremyr A, Rushforth A, Koshkouei M, Taylor J. The NASSS-CAT tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology implementation projects in health and social care: protocol for an evaluation study in real-world settings. JMIR Res Protoc 2020; 9 e16861
| The NASSS-CAT tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology implementation projects in health and social care: protocol for an evaluation study in real-world settings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32401224PubMed |
[13] Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes A’Court C, Hinder S, Fahy N, Procter R, Shaw S. Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19 e367
| Beyond adoption: a new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29092808PubMed |
[14] Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4 50
| Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19664226PubMed |
[15] Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. National hospital cost data collection report: public sector, round 22 (financial year 2017–18). 2020. Available at: https://www.ihpa.gov.au/sites/default/files/round_22_nhcdc_report_public_sector_round_22_2017-18_-_pdf_version.pdf [verified 8 January 2021].
[16] Queensland Government, Queensland Health. Self-isolation for diagnosed cases of COVID-19 direction (No. 3). 2020. Available at: https://www.health.qld.gov.au/system-governance/legislation/cho-public-health-directions-under-expanded-public-health-act-powers/self-isolation-for-diagnosed-cases-of-covid-19-direction [verified 1 March 2020].
[17] Alwashmi MF. The use of digital health in the detection and management of COVID-19. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17 2906
| The use of digital health in the detection and management of COVID-19.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
