Patient perspectives and experiences of remote consultations in people receiving kidney care: A scoping review

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid and sometimes chaotic change in how clinical care was delivered for people living with kidney disease, with increased reliance on digital technologies and the introduction of remote services.
Objective: To conduct a scoping review of studies about peoples’ experiences and perspectives in receipt of remote consultations for kidney care.
Methods: Using Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework, three databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) were searched simultaneously on EBSCO The search included studies published in English from August 2010 to August 2021.
Results: Eight cross-sectional studies met the scoping review criteria (two quantitative, two mixed-method, and four qualitative). Four themes were identified: overall satisfaction with remote services, benefits to patients (convenience, involvement in care, and patient safety), barriers to remote consultations (technical difficulties, digital literacy, loss of interpersonal communication, existing patient-practitioner relationship, and access to technology), and patients’ concerns (need for physical examination, privacy, and confidentiality).
Conclusion: Remote consultations confer multiple advantages to patients; therefore, remote consultations should be offered as an option to patients living with kidney disease beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are several barriers to remote consultation that need to be addressed and understood before implementing remote care long-term. Future research should examine the impact of remote consultations on people living with kidney disease from under-served groups to identify barriers and ensure their suitability and accessibility to the wider population for a more patient-centred approach to kidney care.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Perspectives and experiences of people receiving kidney care via remote consultations: A scoping review, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/jorc.12419. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work, without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation. Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited