This randomised mixed-methods feasibility trial evaluated the Medical Self-Assessment Box for use during telemedicine consultations among medically vulnerable patients. The study was conducted in a rural general practice in Northeast Scotland, enrolling 12 patients out of 82 eligible invitations. Six patients were assigned to the intervention group, and six to the control group, which received no equipment box. Follow-up occurred over six months.
Regarding primary outcomes, 50% of patients in the intervention group (3 of 6) used the equipment. Among those who used the equipment, 100% (5 of 5) rated it as helpful. The intervention group demonstrated 18% fewer primary care contacts compared to the control group. No adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuations, or tolerability issues were reported.
Limitations include the small sample size, the fact that all remote consultations were conducted by telephone, and identified barriers such as GP non-engagement and concerns regarding workload or patient over-monitoring. Causality cannot be established given the feasibility study design.
The findings support the feasibility of a definitive trial, but refinements to patient labelling, GP engagement, and training materials are recommended before proceeding. Generalizability beyond this specific rural setting and the feasibility phase remains uncertain.
View Original Abstract ↓
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated the adoption of telemedicine, but it also exposed gaps in effective remote clinical assessment, particularly for medically vulnerable patients in rural areas. The ORCHARD intervention aimed to address this by providing patients with a Medical Self-Assessment Box to enable self-reporting of vital signs during remote consultations.
MethodsA single-centre randomised mixed-methods feasibility trial recruited medically vulnerable patients from a rural general practice in Northeast Scotland. Participants in intervention group received a home medical equipment box for use during telemedicine consultations over six months. Patients and GPs were interviewed and transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis.
ResultsTwelve (15%) of 82 eligible invited patients enrolled. Six each were allocated to intervention and control group. 50%(n=3)patients in intervention group used equipment in 45%(5 of 11)teleconsultations and rated it helpful in all 5 uses (100%). The intervention group had 18% fewer primary care contacts than controls. All remote consultations were by telephone. Framework Analysis of patient interviews identified facilitators such as ease of use, improved triage access, reassurance, and barriers related to GP non-engagement and written instructions. GP interviews identified clinical value in patient-generated readings, alongside concerns regarding workload and patient over-monitoring.
ConclusionsHalf of intervention participants used the medical-equipment box during remote consultations, all finding it useful, though frequency of use varied among particpants.A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the Medical Self-Assessment Box for optimising remote consulting in medically vulnerable rural patients is feasible.Prior to a definitive trial refinements are recommended to patient labelling, GP engagement, and training materials.