Patients’ Experiences With the Fit of Virtual Atrial Fibrillation Care During the Pandemic: Qualitative Descriptive Study

Abstract

Background In-person health care has been the standard model of care delivery for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Despite the growing use of remote technology, virtual health care has received limited formal study in populations with AF. Understanding the virtual care experiences of patients in specialized AF clinics is essential to inform future planning of AF clinic care. Objective This qualitative descriptive study aimed to understand patients’ virtual AF clinic care experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Participants were recruited from a pool of patients who were receiving care from an AF clinic and who were enrolled in a larger survey study. A total of 8 virtual focus groups (n=30) were conducted in 2 waves between March 2021 and May 2021. Facilitators used a semistructured discussion guide to ask participants questions about their experiences of virtual care and the perceived quality of virtual care and technology support. Three team members initially open coded group data to create a preliminary coding framework. As the analysis progressed, with subsequent focus groups, the code clusters were refined. Results The participants were primarily male (21/30, 70%), aged ≥65 years (20/30, 67%), and college graduates (22/30, 73%). Patients found virtual care to be highly beneficial. Central to their experiences of virtual care was its fit or lack of fit with their health needs, which was integrally connected to communication effectiveness and their preferred virtual care future. Practical benefits included flexibility, convenience, and time and cost savings of virtual care. Virtual care fit occurred for small, quick, and mundane issues (eg, medication refills) but was suboptimal for new and more complex issues that patients thought warranted an in-person visit. Fit often reflected the effectiveness of communication between patient and provider and that of in-clinic follow-up. There was near-complete agreement among participants on the acceptability of virtual communication with their providers in addressing their needs, but this depended on adequate reciprocal communication. Without the benefit of in-person physical assessments, patients were uncertain and lacked confidence in communicating the needed, correct, and comprehensive information. Finally, participants described concerns related to ongoing virtual care with recommendations for their preferred future using a hybrid model of care and integrating patient-reported data (ie, blood pressure measurements) in virtual care delivery. Conclusions Virtual care from a specialty AF clinic provides practical benefits for patients, but they must be weighed against the need for virtual care’s fit with patients’ needs and problems. The stability and complexity of patients’ health needs, their management, and their perceptions of communication effectiveness with providers and clinics must be considered in decisions about appointment modality. Patients’ recommendations for future virtual care through use of hybrid models together with systems for data sharing have the potential to optimize fit.