Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Outreach
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • Feedback
    • Alerts
    • Conference
    • eLetters
    • Audio abstracts
  • RACE AND RACISM IN PRIMARY CARE
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
Advertisement
BJGP Open

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Outreach
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • Feedback
    • Alerts
    • Conference
    • eLetters
    • Audio abstracts
  • RACE AND RACISM IN PRIMARY CARE
Practice & Policy

Improving the utility and sustainability of novel health technology to improve clinical outcomes for patients: an East Staffordshire experience of screening for atrial fibrillation with the AliveCor KardiaMobile

Savio Mathew and Ruth Chambers
BJGP Open 23 February 2021; BJGPO.2020.0169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2020.0169
Savio Mathew
1 Clinical Teaching Fellow, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Savio Mathew
Ruth Chambers
2 Clinical Lead for Technology Enabled Care Service (TECS) Programme, Staffordshire Sustainability and Transformation Partnership’s Digital Workstream, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Ruth.Chambers@stokeccg.nhs.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
  • Screening
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Diagnosis
  • Atrial fibrillation
  • Surveys and questionnaires

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrythmia in the world.1 With a two-fold increased risk of mortality, a near five-fold increased risk of stroke, and a two- to three-fold increased risk of heart failure, the rising prevalence of AF is a major public health burden.2 Patients typically present with palpitations, chest pain, or breathlessness; however, up to a third of patients are asymptomatic. Identifying this subgroup and commencing them on anticoagulation therapy if justified is therefore a major obstacle and necessity in the secondary prevention of AF.3,4

The use of novel health technology in this regard is an option with much potential. Across East Staffordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), we embraced this potential and piloted an initiative to improve identification of patients with AF by distributing single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) devices to 18 general practices between October 2019 and March 2020, following an initial workshop as part of a CCG Local Incentive Scheme. Screening data, as well as clinical feedback in the form of a questionnaire using the online platform Google forms, were then collected from the practices. Further, quality and outcomes framework (QOF) data from NHS Digital and Public Heath England were analysed for trends in the CCG and region.5,6

We present five insights from our experiences and highlight how single lead ECG devices were used to improve clinical outcomes for patients across East Staffordshire.

Insight 1: Choose a suitable product/novel technology

Identifying a suitable solution for the need being addressed is vital to the successful implementation of novel technology. In the diagnosis of AF, 12-lead ECG is the gold-standard choice of investigation.7 However, these tend to be time-consuming during busy clinics, and are dependent on the accuracy of the recording and its subsequent interpretation by a trained clinician. To negate this, we deployed AliveCor KardiaMobile, a portal single-lead ECG device that requires patients to place their fingers on the device for 30 seconds. Recordings are sent wirelessly to compatible smartphone devices and can be viewed on the accompanying Kardia app. The device was chosen for its ease of use and reported range of sensitivity between 77.0% and 96.6% and specificity between 76.0% and 99.1% in the detection of cardiac arrhythmia.8

Insight 2: Engage key stakeholders

Early identification and engagement of key stakeholders facilitates early adoption and implementation of health technology.9 Key stakeholders we identified included clinicians, practice managers, CCG leads, and the primary care network clinical director. Early engagement facilitated a shared vision and objective among all parties involved with the CCG Chair presenting at the initial workshop. Not only did this facilitate greater uptake and implementation of this technology, it advanced our efforts to gather feedback to drive the project forward in the latter stages with the support of the commissioned data facilitation from engaged practices.

Insight 3: Engage users and reduce barriers

Engaging target users and addressing barriers in the uptake and utility of novel technology is another key determinant. In this regard, we invited clinicians and practice staff across East Staffordshire to attend an educational workshop, where talks on best practices in detecting and managing AF, and training on how to use the AliveCor KardiaMobile, were delivered prior to distributing AliveCor devices. Targeted education in this manner reduced barriers around the use of devices and improved utility of the devices, as it required a level of engagement from users. It further raised awareness of the need for early diagnosis of AF and management strategies among all participants.

Insight 4: Be opportunistic

Opportunistic use of technology was another key insight from our experiences. Feedback from clinicians showed differences in the way the AliveCor devices were used. Most notable among them was the indiscriminate use of the devices during flu vaccination clinics. This initiative detected several asymptomatic patients who were subsequently diagnosed with AF. Other examples included the use of these devices during home visits and after the detection of an irregular pulse on physical examination.

Insight 5: Gather feedback

Gathering of feedback and acting on that is another key driver of success. In this regard, we sent out a brief questionnaire using Google forms to stakeholders, to gain further insights into the utility of the devices in the community. Amid the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, we further probed stakeholders as to how the pandemic changed utility of the devices. As expected, there was great heterogeneity in the way the devices were used, and some barriers were identified. Nevertheless, most of stakeholders found the devices useful and would recommend them to a colleague.

Results

Of the 18 practices within East Staffordshire CCG, 16 practices actively participated in this initiative. Eighty AliveCor devices were given out to these practices. In total, 3772 patients (not previously diagnosed with AF) were screened for AF with AliveCor devices in the 6-month period, of whom the majority were attending flu vaccination clinics and were aged ≥65 years. Of these, 258 patients were indicated to have probable AF by the AliveCor devices. A 12-lead ECG confirmed AF for 49 of these patients (positive predictive value = 19%). Forty were subsequently commenced on anticoagulation therapy, with 61% of the newly diagnosed AF patients being managed in practice.

We received 18 responses to our e-survey request for feedback from practice teams. Responses were received from GPs, practice managers, practice nurses, and health care assistants. Ninety-four per cent of responders found the device useful and would recommend it to another colleague. The one responder who found the device redundant commented that if they noticed an irregular pulse manually, they would always do a 12-lead ECG, and therefore did not find the device useful. In response to changes in practice with the current COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority found the devices less useful due to reduced face-to-face consultations, time constraints, and infection control measures.

In comparison to the national average, the AF prevalence in East Staffordshire CCG has continued to increase annually and is marginally greater in 2019/20, at 2.21 versus 2.05.5 Further, among patients with AF with a CHADVASC10 score ≥2, the percentage of patients treated with anticoagulation drug therapy was found to be markedly higher than the national average at 94.47 vs 91.79.

Conclusion

The results of this study show a positive impact on the diagnosis and management of AF using AliveCor KardiaMobile devices in East Staffordshire. Not only have they contributed to improved patient outcomes, with 49 new diagnoses of AF in otherwise asymptomatic patients, but they also have widespread acceptance and are valued by the clinicians utilising them. These findings are in keeping with other studies that have reported similar value in utilising AliveCor KardiaMobile in the detection of AF, and with European Society of Cardiology guidelines that recommend opportunistic screening for AF in patients ≥65 years of age.10,11

Through this technology, we hope to continue improving the diagnosis of AF and associated best practice clinical management, and so reduce the personal, emotional, and financial burden of its complications (such as an avoidable stroke). We have demonstrated here that novel health technology can be used in real life practice and should be considered for addressing challenges in the community. In the implementation of such solutions, from our experiences, a multidimensional approach to the clinical implementation of such strategy is often the best means to achieve sustainability and greater utility.

Notes

Funding

Funding for this project was from funds allotted to Staffordshire by NHS England’s Estates and Technology Transformation Fund and Daiichi Sankyo UK (DSUK) as a non-promotional joint working project. DSUK had no input or influence over the content of this report. Dr Ruth Chambers' engagement with the project was funded from the joint working project; Dr Savio Mathew's was not.

Ethical approval

This was not a research study; it was service redesign and thus did not require research ethics approval.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Rachel Gallyot and Dr David Atherton as clinical leads of East Staffordshire CCG and PCN respectively for their support with the initiative.

  • Received October 18, 2020.
  • Accepted December 16, 2020.
  • Copyright © 2021, The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Iwasaki YK,
    2. Nishida K,
    3. Kato T,
    4. Nattel S
    (2011) Atrial fibrillation pathophysiology: implications for management. Circulation 124(20):2264–2274, doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.019893, pmid:22083148.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lip GYH,
    2. Fauchier L,
    3. Freedman SB,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2:16016, doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.16, pmid:27159789. 16016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Dilaveris PE,
    2. Kennedy HL
    (2017) Silent atrial fibrillation: epidemiology, diagnosis, and clinical impact. Clin Cardiol 40(6):413–418, doi:10.1002/clc.22667, pmid:28273368.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hart RG,
    2. Pearce LA,
    3. Aguilar MI
    (2007) Meta-Analysis: antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 146(12):857–867, doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-12-200706190-00007, pmid:17577005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. NHS Digital
    (2020) Quality and Outcomes Framework, 2019-20 . https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/quality-and-outcomes-framework-achievement-prevalence-and-exceptions-data/2019-20. 11 Feb 2021.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Public Health England
    (2020) Public Health Profiles. https://fingertips.phe.org.uk. 11 Feb 2021.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Lewis M,
    2. Parker D,
    3. Weston C,
    4. Bowes M
    (2011) Screening for atrial fibrillation: sensitivity and specificity of a new methodology. Br J Gen Pract 61(582):38–39, doi:10.3399/bjgp11X548956, pmid:21401988.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2020) KardiaMobile for the ambulatory detection of atrial fibrillation. Medtech innovation briefing [MIB232]. https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/mib232. 11 Feb 2021.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Nilsen ER,
    2. Stendal K,
    3. Gullslett MK
    (2020) Implementation of eHealth technology in community health care: the complexity of stakeholder involvement. BMC Health Serv Res 20(1), doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05287-2, pmid:32393265. 395.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. European Society of Cardiology
    (2020) 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). https://www.escardio.org/Guidelines/Clinical-Practice-Guidelines/Atrial-Fibrillation-Management. 11 Feb 2021.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Jones NR,
    2. Taylor CJ,
    3. Hobbs FDR,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence. Eur Heart J 41(10):1075–1085, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz834, pmid:31811716.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

Latest Articles

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Improving the utility and sustainability of novel health technology to improve clinical outcomes for patients: an East Staffordshire experience of screening for atrial fibrillation with the AliveCor KardiaMobile
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Improving the utility and sustainability of novel health technology to improve clinical outcomes for patients: an East Staffordshire experience of screening for atrial fibrillation with the AliveCor KardiaMobile
Savio Mathew, Ruth Chambers
BJGP Open 23 February 2021; BJGPO.2020.0169. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2020.0169

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Improving the utility and sustainability of novel health technology to improve clinical outcomes for patients: an East Staffordshire experience of screening for atrial fibrillation with the AliveCor KardiaMobile
Savio Mathew, Ruth Chambers
BJGP Open 23 February 2021; BJGPO.2020.0169. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2020.0169
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Background
    • Results
    • Conclusion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Screening
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Diagnosis
  • Atrial fibrillation
  • Surveys and questionnaires

More in this TOC Section

  • Augmented Consulting: the future of primary care?
  • Communicating with people with hearing loss: COVID-19 and beyond
Show more Practice & Policy

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

@BJGPOpen's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2021 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795