ObjectiveTo develop a conceptual model for effective use of telehealth in the management of chronic health conditions, and to use this to develop and evaluate an intervention for people with two exemplar conditions: raised cardiovascular disease risk and depression.DesignThe model was based on several strands of evidence: a metareview and realist synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence on telehealth for chronic conditions; a qualitative study of patients’ and health professionals’ experience of telehealth; a quantitative survey of patients’ interest in using telehealth; and review of existing models of chronic condition management and evidence-based treatment guidelines. Based on these evidence strands, a model was developed and then refined at a stakeholder workshop. Then a telehealth intervention (‘Healthlines’) was designed by incorporating strategies to address each of the model components. The model also provided a framework for evaluation of this intervention within parallel randomised controlled trials in the two exemplar conditions, and the accompanying process evaluations and economic evaluations.SettingPrimary care.ResultsThe TElehealth in CHronic Disease (TECH) model proposes that attention to four components will offer interventions the best chance of success: (1) engagement of patients and health professionals, (2) effective chronic disease management (including subcomponents of self-management, optimisation of treatment, care coordination), (3) partnership between providers and (4) patient, social and health system context. Key intended outcomes are improved health, access to care, patient experience and cost-effective care.ConclusionsA conceptual model has been developed based on multiple sources of evidence which articulates how telehealth may best provide benefits for patients with chronic health conditions. It can be used to structure the design and evaluation of telehealth programmes which aim to be acceptable to patients and providers, and cost-effective.

Shifting the balance of care towards home and community is viewed as requiring interventions which enhance or complement primary care. Technology-based interventions are seen as key to the future in this work. Telehealthcare implicates a new agenda for inter-professional working across boundaries of healthcare. One such interface is between telehealthcare professionals and professionals located in primary care. This study reports the findings from a qualitative study forming part of a broader project examining the potential of developing and implementing telehealth interventions to support patients with long-term conditions. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with telehealth nurse care managers, practice nurses and general practitioners in their respective work settings (39 interviews with 62 participants). Observation was undertaken at a telehealth call centre. The research took place between April 2010 and March 2011. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was undertaken. Telehealth nurse care managers' interviews suggested narrative constructions of new roles and identities to fit telehealth work, combining a holistic ideal and retro-appeal with 'traditional' values of nursing, which distinguished and distanced them from counterparts in general practices. Practice nurses and general practitioners were ambivalent and often sceptical about the contribution of telehealth to long-term condition work. Practice nurses' accounts suggested a sense of protectiveness about maintaining boundaries around established remits of managing long-term conditions; general practitioners, having devolved much of the care of long-term conditions to nurses, were keen to retain their positions as gatekeepers to resources. Perceptions of shifts of professional roles, new ways of working and how they are valued form a relevant contextual element to the introduction of telehealth interventions. A pre-emptive view and response to how professionals understand and approach increasingly complex and multi-faceted roles within primary care is likely to prepare and facilitate the introduction and integration of telehealth innovations into existing patient services.

ContextThe use of the internet for health information by those with long‐term conditions is growing. It has been argued that this represents a form of empowerment by patients, as it enables them to control the content and flow of the information available to them. To explore this, the use of online discussion groups by those with diabetes was examined.MethodSemi‐structured interviews were conducted with 21 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes and analysed using thematic analysis. Participants were recruited via online and offline routes, namely discussion boards, newsletters, and research networks related to diabetes.ResultsBy drawing on the advice, information, and support shared online, participants were empowered to position themselves as active participants in their own health care and to further engage with health‐care professionals.ConclusionThe findings indicate that forums can play a valuable role in aiding and motivating individuals in the daily management diabetes and highlight how this support is used to complement formal health services. However, more work needs to be carried out to determine to explore when and under what circumstances online support may be particularly beneficial to those with long‐term conditions.

Objective One of the key goals of the current reforms in the English National Health Service (NHS) under the Health and Social Care Act, 2012, is to increase the accountability of those responsible for commissioning care for patients (clinical commissioning groups (CCGs)), while at the same time allowing them a greater autonomy. This study was set out to explore CCG's developing accountability relationships. Design We carried out detailed case studies in eight CCGs, using interviews, observation and documentary analysis to explore their multiple accountabilities. Setting/participants We interviewed 91 people, including general practitioners, managers and governing body members in developing CCGs, and undertook 439 h of observation in a wide variety of meetings. Results CCGs are subject to a managerial, sanction-backed accountability to NHS England (the highest tier in the new organisational hierarchy), alongside a number of other external accountabilities to the public and to some of the other new organisations created by the reforms. In addition, unlike their predecessor commissioning organisations, they are subject to complex internal accountabilities to their members. Conclusions The accountability regime to which CCGs are subject to is considerably more complex than that which applied their predecessor organisations. It remains to be seen whether the twin aspirations of increased autonomy and increased accountability can be realised in practice. However, this early study raises some important issues and concerns, including the risk that the different bodies to whom CCGs are accountable will have differing (or conflicting) agendas, and the lack of clarity over the operation of sanction regimes.