ABSTRACT
Background Virtual wards (VWs) deliver multidisciplinary care at home to people with frailty at high risk of a crisis or in-crisis, aiming to mitigate the risk of hospital admission. Different VWs models exist and evidence of effectiveness is inconsistent.
Aim We conducted a rapid realist review to identify different types of VWs, and to develop explanations for how and why VWs could deliver effective frailty management.
Methods We searched published and grey literature to identify evidence on VWs for frailty, based in Great Britain and Ireland. Information on how and why virtual wards might ‘work’ was extracted and synthesised in two rounds with input from clinicians and patient/public contributors, generating 12 hypothesised context-mechanism-outcome configurations.
Results We included 17 published and 11 grey literature documents. VWs could be short-term and acute (1-21 days), or longer-term and preventative (3-7 months).
Effective VW operation requires common standards agreements, information sharing processes, an appropriate multidisciplinary team that plans patient care remotely, and good co-ordination. VWs may enable delivery of frailty interventions through appropriate selection of patients, comprehensive assessment including medication review, integrated case management, and proactive care. Important components for patients and caregivers are their communication with the VW, their experience of care at home, and feeling included, safe and empowered to manage their condition.
Conclusions Insights gained from this review could inform implementation or evaluation of VWs for frailty. A combination of acute and longer-term VWs may be needed, within a whole system approach. An emphasis on proactive care is recommended.
Competing Interest Statement
MW, SI, JS, HM, SD, HL, NW and NB declare that they have no conflicts of interests regarding this work. TW is Research and Medical Director of The Research Institute for the Care of Older People (RICE), which runs a mixture of commercial and non-commercial research activity. Commercial research projects run in the Institute have been funded by: Roche, Biogen, Janssen, AC Immune, Novo Nordisk, and Julius Clinical.
Funding Statement
This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West). The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript or the supplementary appendices. Any additional data are available upon reasonable request to the authors
