Use of a digital application to enhance communication and triage between care homes and National Health Service community services in the United Kingdom: a qualitative evaluation

HealthCall Digital Care Homes Application

HealthCall is a collaboration of seven NHS Foundation Trusts across the Northeast of England and North Cumbria (NHSHealthCall, [online]). It focuses on producing digital solutions to health care challenges. One such solution is the Digital Care Homes application, designed to enhance reporting of non-urgent referrals. The app aims to shorten referral times between care homes and NHS services, with the transfer of relevant information through the app as opposed to care home staff waiting in a queue on the phone. Through the app care home staff can record:

1. vital signs to calculate NEWS

2. contextual information (free text format) including “soft” signs of deterioration (changes in behaviour, mood, sleep, appetite, toileting).

The reporting structure uses the Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR) tool (Leonard et al., 2004), designed to promote organised communication of necessary, contextual information about patients. The referral is reviewed by a clinician at a Single Point of Access (SPA), who requests further information from the care home or triages to an appropriate service. The care home is notified of action taken. Senior carers are most likely to use the app as part of their role.

Care homes are given a digital device and in-house training from HealthCall’s local Clinical Trainers. Training covers the app’s purpose, using the digital device, taking vital signs and what to record on the SBAR tool. App use is monitored by HealthCall. Members of community NHS teams, such as community nurses, also communicate with HealthCall and can support care homes with the app.

This paper concerns the qualitative component of an evaluation of the Digital Care Homes application’s implementation into residential and nursing care homes in Northern England.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)

Patients and the public were involved at the idea generation stage, confirming that research to improve care for care home residents is viewed as a priority. A PPI panel was established. Research questions, topic guide, study design, findings and dissemination strategies, were discussed via a series of online meetings.

Identification and sampling

Relevant stakeholders included the local HealthCall team, local authority staff involved in the implementation, care home staff and residents, relatives of residents, and community NHS staff.

Care home and NHS staff were recruited using purposive sampling aiming for variety in terms of care home size and type, and type of clinician. Convenience and snowball sampling were then used to increase sample size. Residents and relatives were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling.

Recruitment

A member of the local HealthCall team made initial contact, via email, with their colleagues, a Local Authority Commissioner who worked on the implementation, care homes and NHS services on behalf of the research team. They provided a brief description of the evaluation and contact details for the research team who then followed-up on this initial contact.

Care home staff introduced the evaluation to residents who had capacity to provide informed consent. Relatives were sought using a short advert through online community networks. Interested stakeholders were given a PIS and offered the opportunity to ask questions about the evaluation and their participation. PIS were adapted for each stakeholder category. If the wish to participate was upheld a suitable time for data collection was arranged. As the evaluation was conducted remotely, informed consent was secured electronically or verbally, meeting Health Research Authority principles for remote consent.

Data Collection

Data were collected between November 2020 and July 2021 via semi-structured interviews, one-on-one, dyadic, and small group. Interviews were conducted online using video conferencing platforms or by telephone. The topic guide was developed based on similar evaluations conducted by members of the research team (Russell et al., 2020; Stocker et al., 2021) and evaluation aims. As is typical for semi-structured interviews, the topic guide acted as an aide-mémoire rather than being rigidly followed. Interviews were audio-recorded with permission from the participant(s). Data collection ceased once data sufficiency (Dey, 1999) was realised.

Data Analysis

An initial phase of analysis followed the six-phase process for reflexive thematic analysis (TA) (Braun & Clarke, 2019, 2021): familiarisation, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining themes and analysis write-up.

Tentative initial codes were discussed among the team based on relevant previous work. Rather than “bracketing” these potential codes they were included in the initial phase of coding and removed if not relevant, thereby informing, but not leading, early analysis.

In reflexive TA coding is “fluid, organic, and recursive” where codes can “expand, contract, be renamed, split apart … collapsed together … and even be abandoned” (Braun & Clarke, 2021). This reflects our approach to this process. RS, ZC, and SR led the analysis, independently coding transcripts, and meeting regularly to review codes and collaborate on the production, reviewing and defining of themes. Developing analysis was discussed with the wider qualitative team, NP and BH, at various stages of data collection and analysis, supporting the sense making work of analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019, 2021).

Data were then considered against Normalization Process Theory (NPT) (May & Finch, 2009; Ross et al., 2019) constructs of coherence, collective action, cognitive participation, and reflexive monitoring to provide a framework to evaluate implementation success (see Table 3). Similar approaches have been undertaken elsewhere (Asiedu et al., 2019; Ross et al., 2019; Russell et al., 2020). Conducting a TA prior to considering NPT constructs ensured that the voices of participants were accounted for, and analysis was not driven solely by an existing framework.

Participants

Thirty-five participants were recruited (see Table 1). The majority, sixteen, were care home staff. Six of the eight care homes were residential only, two were independently run and they varied in size. Six NHS community nurses, three residents and five relatives participated. The relatives were not related to residents interviewed. Five participants directly involved in implementation were interviewed: four from the local HealthCall team and one Local Authority Commissioner.

Twenty-four interviews were one-to-one. Community Nurse 1 was interviewed individually and participated in a group interview. Twenty-two participated via video conferencing.

Digital skills and confidence

Poor digital skills and limited confidence using digital devices among care home staff was widely acknowledged across stakeholder groups. Older care home staff were viewed as particularly apprehensive. HealthCall participants identified this as a considerable, yet unanticipated challenge. There was an assumption that the general prevalence of smart technology meant staff would be digitally literate. However, the need for digital skills training was viewed as greater than for training on vital signs observations.

Some care home staff mentioned their own lack of digital confidence. This was flagged as a training need that went beyond the Digital Care Homes application.

Practices, Habits, and Cultures

Care home staff could fall back into pre-intervention practices, particularly using the phone for referrals rather than the app. CHM1, while supportive of the intervention and aware that changing behaviour could take time, believed the volume of information required by the app could seem more time consuming than picking up the phone. The local HealthCall team believed such challenges should be anticipated in the introduction of novel interventions. HC3 - Trainer stated the need to stress that the app was “not an extra job, it’s an ‘instead of’ job” during training to tackle this issue.

Reverting to using the phone to make a referral also occurred as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The local HealthCall team assumed this was due to anxiety caused by COVID-19, a view shared by CN1: “they just want to speak to a human […] That’s a human response”. CN1 felt this questioned how embedded the intervention was prior to the pandemic.

Negative views toward care home staff were expressed by two community nurses. While they acknowledged the challenges within care homes, including staff turnover, and the pressure faced by care home nurses, they characterised some staff as “needy” and “manipulative” in their use of the app. These community nurses also believed that care home staff would make “excuses” for when a resident’s observations could not be obtained. This highlights the potential for problematic relationships between stakeholders. That obtaining observations is not always possible was understood by HealthCall and the option to not put observations into the app was something HealthCall provided.

Technology and Operations

Issues with the technology could disrupt the use and embedding of the intervention. The technology could occasionally not work as intended, for example, referrals sent but not received. Unreliable Wi-Fi signals in some care homes could restrict app use to certain parts of care homes or to a desktop computer, typically within the manager’s office, rather than a tablet. HC3 - Trainer believed app use would decline where the convenience of using it was hampered, an issue that poor Wi-Fi signals created. HealthCall discussed problem solving such issues by installing the app onto smartphones with 4G, expanding online access.

HC1 warned that care homes have been “bombarded” with digital technology, especially in response to COVID-19, and was concerned that care homes might end up with too many tablets and applications causing a burden to staff and the IT capability of care homes.

Theme 2: Communication and Training

The HealthCall team maintained relationships with NHS services and care homes, working with them and supporting them as required, and adjusting the training and the app due to this collaborative approach.

Relationships and support

The local HealthCall team discussed the processes involved in developing a rapport with care homes, monitoring use of the app and providing additional support and problem solving, whether this was training or technical support, as required. This work was proactive and involved communication between the HealthCall team, the Single Point of Access, NHS community staff and the care homes, and thus considerable co-ordination.

The local HealthCall team’s relationships with community NHS services could be harnessed to further support the care homes and identify problems. Buy-in from community nurses meant that these stakeholders, who maintain regular contact with the care homes, could encourage engagement with the app. Relatedly, members of the local HealthCall team spoke about having to negotiate expectations and relationships between care homes and NHS services in relation to the intervention. However, the negative views expressed by two community nurses (discussed in Theme 1) suggests these negotiations may be an ongoing requirement for the intervention to function coherently. HealthCall also contacted care homes to check how they were coping with COVID-19, potentially further embedding these relationships.

Relatives of residents were not explicitly familiar with HealthCall. Relatives were ambivalent about whether they should be informed of the intervention. Whether families were informed about or aware of the intervention could differ across the care homes. Relatives felt that families would not mind how healthcare professionals were contacted, as long as residents received appropriate health interventions.

Appropriacy of training

The HealthCall Trainers had appropriate experience and knowledge for their job such as considerable clinical experience and one had a background in intervention implementation. HC1 - Trainer also commented positively on their own HealthCall induction: I don’t want to blow smoke, but it was the best induction I’ve had. Some community nurses provided training during the early phases of the implementation which meant the app was introduced to care homes by someone they were familiar with.

Training was delivered to staff within their own care home. Therefore, practice taking vital signs and using the app occurred in a real-world setting. This was followed up with further visits from the Trainers. The approach to training was well received by care homes and care home staff viewed the Trainers as patient and approachable.

HealthCall amended the approach to training in response to the different phases of implementation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and to address poor digital literacy levels amongst care home staff. In response to the pandemic, the implementation was accelerated to ensure all care homes had use of the app for remote monitoring. The Trainers engaged in pragmatic workarounds, delivering training flexibly. This compromised the depth of the training and further resource had to be spent later to “mop up” (HC2 -Trainer) staff that had missed the training delivered in the early months of the pandemic.

Application and implementation evolution

Various participants discussed the app being developed with care homes and NHS staff and acknowledged the feedback loop of ongoing communication between these stakeholders and HealthCall. This meant that the app improved and evolved with insight from end users, enhancing its appropriacy and legitimacy. The language used within the app also evolved and other adjustments, such as allowing care home staff to not report all vital signs if a resident refused, were added.

The perceived successes of the implementation relied on monitoring app use, providing training and technical support, listening to and responding to feedback from various stakeholders. However, HC4 noted that this created considerable work and was at risk of stretching resources: all of that needs to be constantly updated otherwise the system won’t work and that’s getting busier and busier […] to cope with.

Theme 3. Efficiency and Appropriacy

Enhancing resident care and improving efficiency

Despite issues with digital skills in care homes the view that the intervention was easy to use was common. Care home and NHS staff highlighted the improvements to efficiency afforded by the app, enhancing its legitimacy within this setting. For care home staff, the ease of use and prompt referral process meant they had more time for other tasks and for residents. For community nurses, having vital signs and contextual information about residents in advance of a visit was valuable: …it helps with your priorities… CN1. The HealthCall team and LA Commissioner also highlighted these benefits.

While the residents interviewed did not appear to be fully aware of the intervention, one resident, Resident1, recalled having her vital signs taken and being seen by a medical professional quickly. She described this as giving her “peace of mind in a very short time”. Resident2 mentioned being happy to have her temperature taken every morning. This was mentioned when discussing COVID-19, and as such does not necessarily speak to the app. Relatives were also not fully aware of the intervention. Opinions towards it, as an abstract idea, explained during interviews, were generally positive.

Accountability and legitimacy

A key element of the app is how accountability has been addressed. While care home staff are responsible for recognising a potential decline in a resident’s health and communicating relevant information within a referral, the SPA acts as a safety net. SPA staff are clinically trained with access to patient records via digital health records, providing them with further information on the resident of concern. If SPA have concerns about the information received from a care home, they can contact the care home for clarification. As the clinical experience of care home staff is variable and often limited, placing the responsibility for interpretation of clinical information and response onto the SPA removes this potential burden of clinical accountability from the care homes.

Care home staff spend considerable time with their residents and typically recognise ‘soft’ signs of deterioration. This pre-existing knowledge was deemed vital for the intervention to perform coherently. This intervention legitimised these skills by placing them on par of importance with more objective observations such as vital signs. The local HealthCall team and community nurses appreciated that NEWS alone is not an appropriate tool for diagnosis, but part of a wider overview of the resident. This recognition prevented the intervention from having an onus on obtaining all vital signs, which is not always possible.

Upskilling

Stakeholders believed the app improved the digital literacy and capability of care home staff. This may have been influenced by the increased need for remote monitoring and digital communication created by COVID-19. Improvements in communication were noted with participants across stakeholder groups observing that clinical knowledge among care home staff had advanced and the information they provided to support referrals had improved.

Normalisation Process Theory

Table 3, below, outlines how the findings from the thematic analysis relate to NPT constructs (further detail provided in Appendix S1). Resident and relative stakeholders’ awareness of the intervention was limited and their involvement in the implementation passive as opposed to active. As such the NPT findings relate chiefly to other participants.

Strengths and limitations

We captured the experiences and views of a range of stakeholders, including care home residents who are often excluded from such evaluations due to challenges of recruitment. Most care home staff interviewed were senior carers, the most common user of the Digital Care Homes application, providing data on the real world, practical experience of the intervention. This is a strength this evaluation.

No care home nurses were recruited and from the NHS perspective we only spoke with community nurses. This may have influenced the findings produced.

Conclusion

The HealthCall Digital Care Homes app appears to be a feasible, appropriate and legitimate intervention to support improved referral, triage and health care support for non-urgent health care needs of care home residents. The comprehensive implementation process that welcomed feedback to support improvements to the intervention and implementation is the core of this intervention’s success. For this and similar interventions to achieve success nationally, implementations require rapport building and a willingness among those driving the implementation to listen to the views of end users. Ensuring that care homes are digitally enabled with a digitally literate workforce will require structural and economic support from national and local policy makers and care home providers.