Hospital Staff Perspectives on the Drivers and Challenges in Implementing a Virtual Rehabilitation Ward: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Over the past decade, the adoption of virtual wards has surged. Virtual wards aim to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions, expedite home discharge, and enhance patient satisfaction, which are particularly beneficial for the older adult population who faces risks associated with hospitalization. Consequently, substantial investments are being made in virtual rehabilitation wards (VRWs), despite evidence of varying levels of success in their implementation. However, the facilitators and barriers experienced by virtual ward staff for the rapid implementation of these innovative care models remain poorly understood. Objective: This paper presents insights from hospital staff working on an Australian VRW in response to the growing demand for programs aimed at preventing hospital admissions. We explore staff's perspectives on the facilitators and barriers of the VRW, shedding light on service setup and delivery. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 VRW staff using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. The analysis of data was performed using framework analysis and the 7 domains of the NASSS framework. Results: The results were mapped onto the 7 domains of the NASSS framework. (1) Condition: Managing certain conditions, especially those involving comorbidities and sociocultural factors, can be challenging. (2) Technology: The VRW demonstrated suitability for technologically engaged patients without cognitive impairment, offering advantages in clinical decision-making through remote monitoring and video calls. However, interoperability issues and equipment malfunctions caused staff frustration, highlighting the importance of promptly addressing technical challenges. (3) Value proposition: The VRW empowered patients to choose their care location, extending access to care for rural communities and enabling home-based treatment for older adults. (4) Adopters and (5) organizations: Despite these benefits, the cultural shift from in-person to remote treatment introduced uncertainties in workflows, professional responsibilities, resource allocation, and intake processes. (6) Wider system and (7) embedding: As the service continues to develop to address gaps in hospital capacity, it is imperative to prioritize ongoing adaptation. This includes refining the process of smoothly transferring patients back to the hospital, addressing technical aspects, ensuring seamless continuity of care, and thoughtfully considering how the burden of care may shift to patients and their families. Conclusions: In this qualitative study exploring health care staff's experience of an innovative VRW, we identified several drivers and challenges to implementation and acceptability. The findings have implications for future services considering implementing VRWs for older adults in terms of service setup and delivery. Future work will focus on assessing patient and carer experiences of the VRW.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".