Barriers and enablers to sustaining hybrid care beyond the pandemic: lessons from the RAPIDE project

Abstract Background Hybrid care models combining remote and in-person delivery were widely adopted during COVID-19, especially for managing chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes and heart failure. While effective during the pandemic, these models proved difficult to sustain. We explored why hybrid care was not maintained post-pandemic and what is needed to support its long-term use in both emergencies and routine care. Methods Interviews with 26 healthcare professionals and stakeholders (GPs, specialists, patient representatives, and public health officials) in seven European countries explored barriers to service delivery and access. Results Hybrid care was introduced rapidly but lacked infrastructure, training, and policy support for sustained use. Clinicians lacked guidance on remote consultations, or criteria for choosing remote vs in-person care, leading to variation in practice, increased workload, and care quality concerns. Data protection rules limited use of familiar tools, while approved platforms were unreliable, poorly integrated with clinical systems, or difficult for patients to use-particularly affecting older adults, migrants, and those with limited digital literacy. Despite challenges, hybrid care had benefits in specific contexts. Phone calls worked well for low-complexity follow-ups, especially when patient-provider relationships existed. Nurse-supported remote care enabled symptom management and medication changes, with some models combining in-person nursing care while doctors assisted remotely. Proactive outreach, triage, and collaboration with pharmacists and community services also supported continuity, though often ad hoc and short-term. Conclusions Hybrid care met an urgent need during the pandemic but was not designed for the long term. To be sustainable, it must be embedded into health system planning, supported by investment in integrated digital infrastructure, clear clinical guidance, user-friendly tools, and equitable access to digital services.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Public Health
Published
2025-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaf161.102
Primary Topic
Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Barriers and enablers to sustaining hybrid care beyond the pandemic: lessons from the RAPIDE project

Julian Alexander Mamo, Máire A Connolly, Lem Ngongalah, Julie Hayes et al.
European Journal of Public Health
Primary Care and Health Outcomes
article

Barriers and enablers to sustaining hybrid care beyond the pandemic: lessons from the RAPIDE project

Julian Alexander Mamo, Máire A Connolly, Lem Ngongalah, Julie Hayes, Andrea Cuschieri
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Hybrid care models combining remote and in-person delivery were widely adopted during COVID-19, especially for managing chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes and heart failure. While effective during the pandemic, these models proved difficult to sustain. We explored why hybrid care was not maintained post-pandemic and what is needed to support its long-term use in both emergencies and routine care. Methods Interviews with 26 healthcare professionals and stakeholders (GPs, specialists, patient representatives, and public health officials) in seven European countries explored barriers to service delivery and access. Results Hybrid care was introduced rapidly but lacked infrastructure, training, and policy support for sustained use. Clinicians lacked guidance on remote consultations, or criteria for choosing remote vs in-person care, leading to variation in practice, increased workload, and care quality concerns. Data protection rules limited use of familiar tools, while approved platforms were unreliable, poorly integrated with clinical systems, or difficult for patients to use-particularly affecting older adults, migrants, and those with limited digital literacy. Despite challenges, hybrid care had benefits in specific contexts. Phone calls worked well for low-complexity follow-ups, especially when patient-provider relationships existed. Nurse-supported remote care enabled symptom management and medication changes, with some models combining in-person nursing care while doctors assisted remotely. Proactive outreach, triage, and collaboration with pharmacists and community services also supported continuity, though often ad hoc and short-term. Conclusions Hybrid care met an urgent need during the pandemic but was not designed for the long term. To be sustainable, it must be embedded into health system planning, supported by investment in integrated digital infrastructure, clear clinical guidance, user-friendly tools, and equitable access to digital services.

European Journal of Public HealthVol. 35(Supplement_4)
Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE), University of Malta (MT), COPE Galway (IE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Primary Care and Health Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.