Aim Centring on nursing homes, we analysed the implementation process of a tablet‐ and videoconferencing‐based telemedicine application from the perspectives of management, nursing staff and physicians. Design We used a qualitative design based on interviews to explore diverse perspectives on the implementation of telemedicine. Methods We conducted fourteen face‐to‐face or online interviews with a purposeful sample of five managers, six nurses and three general practitioners treating residents in Austrian nursing homes during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We condensed data using thematic analysis. Results Nursing home management implemented telemedicine rapidly, using a top‐down approach met with ambivalence by staff. On the part of nurses, their professional understanding of person‐centred care was challenged. Telemedicine also impacted cooperation between nurses and physicians, influencing their respective understanding of their roles. Working experience with digital nursing documentation had a positive effect on users' acceptance of the telemedicine solution.

The high need for optimal diabetes management among an ever-increasing number of patients dictates the development and implementation of new digital sensors for continuous glucose monitoring. The purpose of this work is to systematize the global patenting trends of digital sensors for continuous glucose monitoring and analyze their effectiveness in controlling the treatment of diabetes patients of different ages and risk groups. The Lens database was used to build the patent landscape of sensors for continuous glucose monitoring. Retrospective analysis showed that the patenting of sensors for continuous glucose monitoring had positive trend over the analyzed period (2000–2022). Leading development companies are Dexcom Inc., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Medtronic Minimed Inc., Roche Diabetes Care Inc., Roche Diagnostics Operations Inc., Roche Diabetes Care Gmbh, and Ascensia Diabetes Care Holdings Ag, among others. Since 2006, a new approach has emerged where digital sensors are used for continuous glucose monitoring, and smartphones act as receivers for the data. Additionally, telemedicine communication is employed to facilitate this process. This opens up new opportunities for assessing the glycemic profile (glycemic curve information, quantitative assessment of the duration and amplitude of glucose fluctuations, and so on), which may contribute to improved diabetes management. A number of digital sensors for minimally invasive glucose monitoring are patented, have received FDA approval, and have been on the market for over 10 years. Their effectiveness in the clinic has been proven, and advantages and disadvantages have been clarified. Digital sensors offer a non-invasive option for monitoring blood glucose levels, providing an alternative to traditional invasive methods. This is particularly useful for patients with diabetes who require frequent monitoring, including before and after meals, during and after exercise, and in other scenarios where glucose levels can fluctuate. However, non-invasive glucose measurements can also benefit patients without diabetes, such as those following a dietary treatment plan, pregnant women, and individuals during fasting periods like Ramadan. The availability of non-invasive monitoring is especially valuable for patients in high-risk groups and across different age ranges. New world trends have been identified in the patenting of digital sensors for non-invasive glucose monitoring in interstitial skin fluid, saliva, sweat, tear fluid, and exhaled air. A number of non-invasive devices have received the CE mark approval, which confirms that the items meet European health, safety, and environmental protection standards (TensorTip Combo-Glucometer, Cnoga Medical Ltd.; SugarBEAT, Nemaura Medical; GlucoTrack, GlucoTrack Inc.), but are not FDA-approved yet. The above-mentioned sensors have characteristics that make them popular in the treatment of diabetes: they do not require implantation, do not cause an organism reaction to a foreign body, and are convenient to use. In the EU, in order to increase clinical safety and the level of transparency about medical devices, manufacturers must obtain certificates in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/745, taking into account the transition period. The development of systems, which include digital sensors for continuous glucose monitoring, mobile applications, and web platforms for professional analysis of glycemic control and implementation of unified glycemic assessment principles in mobile healthcare, represent promising approaches for controlling glycaemia in patients.

IntroductionSince becoming available, vaccines against COVID-19 have been a focus of public debate. This is particularly relevant among healthcare and social workers, who interact with vulnerable patients and clients on a daily basis. With employers implementing educational programs and offering incentives to raise vaccine willingness among their staff, it is crucial to understand drivers of vaccine acceptance and hesitancy as well as the impact employers can play on vaccine decision-making.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study via computer-assisted telephone and web interviews. We recruited from a pool of employees from nursing and social care institutions in Vienna and Lower Austria operated by one healthcare NGO. Variables included in the analysis were socio-demographic attributes, reasons for or against the vaccine, sources of information, opinions of mandatory vaccination, and whether respondents had previously been infected with COVID-19 or knew someone who had.Results86.2% of respondents had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. 13.8% were unvaccinated. Vaccinated respondents' main reason for getting the vaccine was to protect themselves (79.6%) as well as others (74.1%), while non-vaccinated respondents cited a fear of short or long-term side effects (58.8 and 42.4%, respectively) as their primary reason for not getting vaccinated. 72.8% of the unvaccinated said no incentive would make them change their mind, while 17.4% specified abstract concepts or systemic change as effective incentives. Monetary incentives were not seen as a motivator. Unvaccinated respondents were significantly more worried about the future than vaccinated respondents (78.8 vs. 26.3%, p < 0.001). They were also significantly more likely to view their employers' vaccine recommendations as “manipulative” (50.6 vs. 12.4%, p < 0.001), while vaccinated respondents were significantly more likely to view them as “supportive” (68.0 vs. 25.9%, p < 0.001).ConclusionWhile employers have the means to mediate public health decision-making by providing information, deciding to become vaccinated is a more complex process including public debate, world views, political influences, and the uptake of information. Employers can act as mediators for public health decision-making, moving policy measures beyond an individualized view of health choices and health literacy toward more structural, systemic, and community-based efforts.

No abstract