Evaluation of the introduction of a single-lead ECG device and digital cardiologist consultation platform among general practitioners in the Netherlands

Aim: To evaluate the use of a single-lead electrocardiography (1L-ECG) device and digital cardiologist consultation platform in diagnosing arrhythmias among general practitioners (GPs).

Background: Handheld 1L-ECG offers a user-friendly alternative to conventional 12-lead ECG in primary care. While GPs can safely rule out arrhythmias on 1L-ECG recordings, expert consultation is required to confirm suspected arrhythmias. Little is known about GPs' experiences with both a 1L-ECG device and digital consultation platform for daily practice.

Methods: We used two distinct methods in this study. First, in an observational study, we collected and described all cases shared by GPs within a digital cardiologist consultation platform initiated by a local GP cooperative. This GP cooperative distributed KardiaMobile 1L-ECG devices among all affiliated GPs (n = 203) and invited them to this consultation platform. In the second part, we used an online questionnaire to evaluate the experiences of these GPs using the KardiaMobile and consultation platform.

Findings: In total, 98 (48%) GPs participated in this project, of whom 48 (49%) shared 156 cases. The expert panel was able to provide a definitive rhythm interpretation in 130 (83.3%) shared cases and answered in a median of 4 min (IQR: 2-18). GPs responding to the questionnaire (n = 43; 44%) thought the KardiaMobile was of added value for rhythm diagnostics in primary care (n = 42; 98%) and easy to use (n = 41; 95%). Most GPs (n = 36; 84%) valued the feedback from the cardiologists in the consultation platform. GPs experienced this project to have a positive impact on both the quality of care and diagnostic efficiency for patients with (suspected) cardiac arrhythmias. Although we lack a comprehensive picture of experienced impediments by GPs, solving technical issues was mentioned to be helpful for further implementation. More research is needed to explore reasons of GPs not motivated using these tools and to assess real-life clinical impact.