Intention of healthcare providers to use video-communication in terminal care: a cross-sectional study

Background Interdisciplinary collaboration between healthcare providers with regard to consultation, transfer and advice in terminal care is both important and challenging. The use of video communication in terminal care is low while in first-line healthcare it has the potential to improve quality of care, as it allows healthcare providers to assess the clinical situation in real time and determine collectively what care is needed. The aim of the present study is to explore the intention to use video communication by healthcare providers in interprofessional terminal care and predictors herein. Methods In this cross-sectional study, an online survey was used to explore the intention to use video communication. The survey was sent to first-line healthcare providers involved in terminal care (at home, in hospices and/ or nursing homes) and consisted of 39 questions regarding demographics, experience with video communication and constructs of intention to use (i.e. Outcome expectancy, Effort expectancy, Attitude, Social influence, Facilitating conditions, Anxiety, Self-efficacy and Personal innovativeness) based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographics and experiences with video communication. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to give insight in the intention to use video communication and predictors herein. Results 90 respondents were included in the analysis.65 (72%) respondents had experience with video communication within their profession, although only 15 respondents (17%) used it in terminal care. In general, healthcare providers intended to use video communication in terminal care (Mean (M) = 3.6; Standard Deviation (SD) = .88). The regression model was significant (F = 9.809, p-value <.001) and explained 44% of the variance in intention to use video communication, with 'Outcome expectancy' (beta .420, p < .001) and 'Social influence' (beta .266, p = .004) as significant predictors. Conclusions Healthcare providers have in general the intention to use video communication in interprofessional terminal care. However, their actual use in terminal care is low. 'Outcome expectancy' and 'Social influence' seem to be important predictors for intention to use video communication. This implicates the importance of informing healthcare providers, and their colleagues and significant others, about the usefulness and efficiency of video communication.