Cited by 100Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationElectronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

Staff acceptance of a telemedicine intensive care unit program: A qualitative study

Moeckli, Jane, Cram, Peter, Cunningham, Cassie, Reisinger, Heather Schacht·2013·Journal of Critical Care

Abstract

Purpose We conducted an evaluation to identify factors related to intensive care unit (ICU) staff acceptance of a telemedicine ICU (Tele-ICU) program in preimplementation and postimplementation phases.Methods Individual or group semistructured interviews and site observations were conducted with staff from the Veterans Affairs Midwest Health Care Network Tele-ICU and affiliated ICUs. A qualitative content analysis of preimplementation and postimplementation transcripts and field notes was undertaken to identify themes positively and negatively influencing Tele-ICU acceptance.Results Telemedicine ICU training, Tele-ICU understanding, perceived need, and organizational factors emerged as influencing acceptance of the Tele-ICU before implementation. After implementation, Tele-ICU understanding, impact on work systems, perceived usefulness, and relationships were factors influencing acceptance and utilization. Barriers to implementation included confusion about how to use the Tele-ICU, disruptions to communication and workflows, unmet expectations, and discomfort with being monitored. Facilitators included positive experiences, discovery of new benefits, and recognition of Tele-ICU staff as complementing bedside care.Conclusions Telemedicine ICU implementation is complex. Time and resources should be allocated for local coordination, continuous needs assessment for Tele-ICU support, staff training, developing interpersonal relationships, and systems design and evaluation. Such efforts are likely to be rewarded with more rapid staff acceptance of this new technology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.05.008

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moeckli, J., Cram, P., Cunningham, C., & Reisinger, H. S.
Affiliations
  • Iowa City VA Health Care System (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Moeckli, Jane
Venue
Journal of Critical Care
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
890-901
ISSN
0883-9441 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972694824
Cited by
100
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5
FWCI
8.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Critical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (I01 HX000261)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K24AR062133, AR062133)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
tele-ICU, employee acceptance, technology implementation, intensive care unit staff, perceived usefulness, organizational factors, employee training, workflow disruption, communication disruption, remote patient monitoring, implementation barriers and facilitators
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Critical Care, Female, Hospitals, Veterans, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Interviews as Topic, Male, Quality of Health Care, United States, Telemedicine, Qualitative Research, Patient Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review