Cited by 73Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTechnology Use by Older AdultsSocial Policies and Healthcare Reform

Nurses’ and community support workers’ experience of telehealth: a longitudinal case study

Open access
Sharma, Urvashi, Clarke, Malcolm·2014·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Introduction of telehealth into the healthcare setting has been recognised as a service that might be experienced as disruptive. This paper explores how this disruption is experienced. METHODS: In a longitudinal qualitative study, we conducted focus group discussions prior to and semi structured interviews post introduction of a telehealth service in Nottingham, U.K. with the community matrons, congestive heart failure nurses, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease nurses and community support workers that would be involved in order to elicit their preconceptions and reactions to the implementation. RESULTS: Users experienced disruption due to the implementation of telehealth as threatening. Three main factors add to the experience of threat and affect the decision to use the technology: change in clinical routines and increased workload; change in interactions with patients and fundamentals of face-to-face nursing work; and change in skills required with marginalisation of clinical expertise. CONCLUSION: Since the introduction of telehealth can be experienced as threatening, managers and service providers should aim at minimising the disruption caused by taking the above factors on board. This can be achieved by employing simple yet effective measures such as: providing timely, appropriate and context specific training; provision of adequate technical support; and procedures that allow a balance between the use of telehealth and personal visit by nurses delivering care to their patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6963-14-164

Cites

33 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Acceptance by professional staff may be the single most important determinant of whether a new technology-supported service succeeds or fails at a local level.

    “Acceptance by professional staff may be the single most important determinant of whether a new technology-supported service succeeds or fails at a local level [17,36,39,79,90,91].”

    From 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 (2017) · cites this paper as [90]

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) says that failing to address nurses’ and community support workers’ concerns can harm telehealth service integration. The Background (page unavailable) describes success as depending on an interplay of technological, social and organisational factors. The paper supports staff acceptance as important, but not the claim that it may be the single most important determinant of local success or failure. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharma, U., & Clarke, M.
Affiliations
Brunel University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Sharma, Urvashi
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2014-04-10
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
164-164
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147536507
Cited by
73
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Social Policies and Healthcare Reform
Keywords
telemedicine, nurses' experiences, community support workers, threat perception, routine clinical practice, workload, clinical expertise, technology adoption, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nursing training, technical support, community nursing
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Community Health Workers, Community Health Services, England, Health Services Research, Heart Failure, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Workload, Focus Groups, Telemedicine, Nurse's Role, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Qualitative Research

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