Evaluating the Effectiveness of Tele-Nursing for Managing Type 2 Diabetes via NHS Telehealth Platforms

Introduction

Tele-nursing, the delivery of nursing care and support through telecommunication technologies; has proved to be a promising approach to manage chronic conditions like Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). In the NHS, platforms such as the NHS App, NHS @home initiatives, and the Florence text-messaging system (Flo) enable remote monitoring and coaching of patients by nurses (Peckham, 2023; Chaudhry, Ormandy and Vasilica, 2024; NHS England, no date). This evaluation examines how effective tele-nursing is in managing T2DM, focusing on clinical outcomes, access equity, and cost-effectiveness. This research will draw on recent NHS pilot data, academic studies, and examples from NHS telehealth programs to provide a balanced analysis of tele-nursing’s viability as a mainstream model for diabetes care.

Type 2 diabetes is a prevalent and costly long-term condition; about 4.3 million people live with diabetes in the UK (90% Type 2) and it accounts for significant NHS resource use such as outpatient visits or complications leading to hospitalizations (Whicher, O’Neill and Holt, 2020; Diabetes Research & Wellness Foundation, 2023). Traditional management involves regular face-to-face check-ups, blood glucose monitoring, and education on lifestyle, often delivered in clinics. Tele-nursing aims to complement or replace some of these in-person interactions with virtual monitoring and coaching, which could improve convenience and frequency of contact. Nurses, in this context, play a vital role; they can remotely review blood glucose readings, adjust advice or medications per protocol, and provide ongoing support.

Key Telehealth Platforms in NHS for Diabetes

NHS App

Primarily known for appointment bookings and prescription refills, the NHS App is evolving to include features like viewing medical records and integrating personal health data (Reidy et al., 2025). For diabetes, the NHS App can be a portal where patients upload glucose readings or access educational content, and possibly message their care team.

NHS @home (Diabetes at Home)

This initiative, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, provides remote monitoring kits and apps to patients so they can track metrics such as glucose, blood pressure, weight at home (NHS England, no date). It often involves a digital platform accessible by patients and clinicians to share data.

Florence (Flo) Simple Telehealth

A notable NHS-used system where patients receive and respond to text message prompts. For example, Flo might text a patient daily or weekly asking for their blood sugar reading; the patient replies with a value, and Flo, programmed with nurse-set thresholds, sends back tailored advice or encouragement (Chaudhry, Ormandy and Vasilica, 2024). Flo has been used in various regions for diabetes, hypertension, etc., showing improved patient engagement and adherence (Florence Community, no date; NHS England, 2014).

This evaluation will look at clinical effectiveness such as blood glucose control, HbA1c outcomes, and complication rates; access and equity considerations such as who benefits or is left behind by tele-nursing; and cost and resource impacts such as whether FLO reduces clinic visits, saves costs or simply adds costs. This research will consider data up to 2025, including systematic reviews and NHS pilots, to gauge whether tele-nursing is ready to be scaled as a mainstream model for T2DM management.

Clinical Outcomes of Tele-Nursing in Type 2 Diabetes

Research consistently indicates that telemedicine interventions for type 2 diabetes can improve glycaemic control. A recent umbrella review of 30 systematic reviews (2025) found that virtual care significantly improves HbA1c levels in people with T2DM (Ravi et al., 2025). Specifically, meta-analysis showed an average HbA1c reduction of about 0.3-0.4 percentage points compared to usual care (Ravi et al., 2025). While that improvement may seem low, at a large population level it is meaningful in reducing long-term complication risk. Tele-nursing is a key component of many of these virtual interventions; often involving regular follow-up messages/calls and personalized feedback from nurses.

Clinical outcomes noted include:

Improved Glycaemic Control

Studies of tele-nursing, where nurses monitor patients via phone or text, have shown better blood sugar control. For instance, one trial reported telehealth-managed patients had greater reductions in HbA1c than those in traditional care; for instance, a drop of 1.0% vs 0.5% (De Groot et al., 2021). A BMJ Open systematic review (2023) also concluded telemedicine for T2DM generally leads to lower HbA1c (Ravi et al., 2025). Mechanistically, this probably results from more frequent adjustments to treatment and increased patient adherence due to continual engagement. Nurses can, therefore, catch rising trends in glucose and intervene earlier than waiting for a 3-month clinic visit.

Top UK Assignment Samples

Better Blood Pressure and Weight Management

Many tele-nursing programs for diabetes also address comorbid hypertension and obesity. Remote monitoring of BP with nurse feedback can improve BP control (Hwang and Chan, 2023); some Flo implementations have shown improved BP readings in diabetics by prompting medication adherence and lifestyle tips (The King’s Fund, 2018). Similarly, patients often report weight loss when they receive regular coaching on diet/exercise via telehealth (Law et al., 2024). However, evidence on weight/BMI is mixed; the umbrella review mentioned earlier noted significant impacts on BMI in some cases (Ravi et al., 2025), but not all studies focus on weight. Still, the integrated approach often taken by NHS tele-nurses for addressing holistic health tends to support weight management through goal setting and accountability (Keenan, 2022).

Medication Adherence and Self-Management

Tele-nursing interventions often improve patients’ adherence to medications and glucose monitoring. For example, Florence’s daily prompts serve as medication reminders or to check glucose at certain times (Irwin and De, 2017). This regular prompting and the knowledge that someone is watching the readings tend to make patients more consistent. Dr. Parijat De’s use of Flo with young diabetes patients led to substantially improved adherence to glucose monitoring and medication, with fewer skipped insulin doses (Irwin and De, 2017). Patients essentially develop a routine aided by the technology.

Reduction in Acute Events

Over time, better control should translate to fewer acute hyperglycaemic or hypoglycaemic episodes. Some programs have reported reductions in diabetes-related ER visits or hospitalizations. For instance, one telehealth trial saw fewer hypoglycaemic events during Ramadan among those receiving telemonitoring vs control (Watson, McConnell and Coates, 2021). If nurses can remotely identify risky patterns like frequent hypos or very high sugars, and intervene by adjusting diet & timing of meds, etc.; acute events can drop (Coman et al., 2024). There is also evidence from broader telehealth studies that emergency admissions can be reduced by such interventions; a BMJ Open study found telehealth was associated with a net 22.7% reduction in annual emergency admissions for chronic conditions (van Berkel et al., 2019), which likely includes diabetic emergencies.

Patient Empowerment and Health Outcomes

Tele-nursing often emphasizes patient education; virtual tele-nursing support improves patients’ self-efficacy; many report they better understand their condition and feel more confident in self-managing (Alsahli et al., 2025). Qualitative feedback from NHS telehealth programs indicates patients appreciate the frequent contact and feel more “in control” of their diabetes (Lee, Greenfield and Pappas, 2018). They often mention making healthier choices because of the accountability; knowing they will report their steps or blood sugars motivates them to stick to diets or exercise plans (Hopp et al., 2007). Over the long term, this can translate to improved clinical outcomes beyond just numbers; possibly lower rates of diabetic complications; although that requires long follow-up to conclusively show up on the results. Early signs like improved foot care from nurse reminders or eye check attendance have been noted in some tele-nursing cohorts, potentially preventing complications (Ju et al., 2023; Fonda et al., 2007).

However, it is important to note that not all studies show large improvements; some show telehealth is ‘non-inferior’ to usual care; stating that while it is as good, it is not dramatically better in controlling diabetes (Truong Van Dat et al., 2024). Variability in outcomes often depends on the intensity of the intervention and patient engagement (Li et al., 2022). Tele-nursing seems particularly effective for those who actively participate by sending readings or responding to advice (Yu, 2021). There is also a possibility where improvements may fall completely; initial gains in HbA1c might be significant, but sustaining further improvements might require continuous innovation in the approach.

Clinical evidence, therefore, suggests that tele-nursing can effectively improve diabetes control, primarily by facilitating more continuous, responsive care. Patients get nearly real-time feedback on their health data rather than waiting for the next appointment. This leads to tighter glucose control and could reduce complications. The tele-nursing approach aligns with the modern management principle of “little and often”; frequent small interactions that cumulatively have a big impact on management, as opposed to infrequent big clinic visits. The NHS’s own experiences, like with Flo, have shown “wide ranging benefits” including better resource use and patient outcomes. The clinical case for tele-nursing is quite strong as an adjunct to usual care.

Get Assignment Help for Top Subjects

Access, Equity, and Patient Acceptability

A critical aspect of tele-nursing is whether it improves access to care equitably or worsens the “digital divide.” The NHS has a mandate to ensure digital health innovations do not leave any group behind. This section will try to evaluate who benefits from tele-nursing and who might be at risk of exclusion:

Geographical Access

Tele-nursing can dramatically improve access for patients in remote or underserved areas (Asbath, Tanaka and Nakamura, 2025). Rural patients or those with mobility issues who might skip in-person visits can engage via phone or app easily. A study in the UK’s rural areas found telemedicine significantly improved access by reducing travel barriers (Watson, McConnell and Coates, 2021). For these patients, tele-nursing is a lifeline; they can get regular support without a 2-hour journey to a clinic. Similarly, during the COVID pandemic, telehealth ensured continuity of diabetes care when face-to-face was limited (Sun et al., 2023). Therefore, in terms of geography and physical access, tele-nursing enhances equity by reaching people at home.

Age and Digital Literacy

A major concern is older patients, who form a large portion of T2DM (Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) cases, and their ability or willingness to use telehealth. The stereotype is older adults struggle with technology. However, trends are changing. ONS data show that many over-70s are increasingly online, and they are the second-most online age group after 20s in terms of time spent (Sunnemark and Goodier, 2024; Office for National Statistics, 2023), and they are heavy users of services like the NHS App, with two-thirds of NHS App users being recently were over retirement age (Sunnemark and Goodier, 2024). This suggests older patients are capable of engaging with digital health if properly supported. Indeed, Age UK notes many seniors have embraced digital change, though a segment remains offline (Sunnemark and Goodier, 2024). According to ‘Age UK’, about 18% of people 65+ do not use the internet at all, and around 33% of 75+ lack fundamental digital skills (Age UK, 2024). So, there is a significant minority of older diabetic patients who could be left out if telehealth were the only option. For those who can use technology, tele-nursing is usually welcomed; older patients enjoy the reassurance of Flo’s daily check-ins or the convenience of remote consultations; especially if they have mobility issues (Cottrell, McMillan and Chambers, 2012). For those who cannot or will not use tech, alternative provisions must remain, like face-to-face nurse visits or phone calls (even the tech-averse often can manage phone calls) so tele-nursing can be as simple as a telephone approach (Chen et al., 2025; Marlina et al., 2023).

Socioeconomic Factors

Low-income or disadvantaged groups might face barriers such as lack of smartphones, limited data plans, or lower digital literacy. There is evidence the digital divide disproportionately affects lower socioeconomic and minority groups (Deoli and Zeng, 2022). If tele-nursing requires a smartphone or internet, some patients may not have reliable access. NHS tries to mitigate this; for example, Flo works via basic text messages, not requiring a smartphone or broadband, making it more inclusive, since virtually anyone with any mobile phone can use it (The King’s Fund, 2018). This is a big advantage of simpler tech like SMS telehealth, since it is accessible to those who might not navigate apps. Also, NHS has provided devices in some pilots by loaning tablets or glucose sensors to ensure access (Robbins et al., 2022; NHS England, 2020). Still, a portion of very low-income or homeless patients might not engage with telehealth; traditional outreach will be needed for them. On the other hand, there is a benefit for working-age poorer individuals, since tele-nursing saves on travel costs and time off work for appointments, which can relieve some burden (Dávalos et al., 2009; Snoswell et al., 2020).

Ethnicity and Language

For patients whose first language is not English or who may have cultural differences in communication, telehealth presents challenges and opportunities. Some apps might not be multilingual. The NHS App currently is English-only, which can be a barrier (UK Government, 2024). However, tele-nursing delivered by local nurses can be tailored; for instance, a nurse who speaks Punjabi could text/call a Punjabi-speaking patient in their language, improving understanding. It requires conscious effort to provide culturally competent telehealth (Hilty et al., 2021). If not addressed, it could worsen disparities. For example, South Asian populations have high T2DM rates but if they find the technology hard due to language, they may disengage from participation (Hodgson et al., 2025; Sah, 2022). Tele-nursing solutions, therefore, must include translating educational content on these platforms or using interpreters in tele-consults (Massey and Devi, 2025).

Patient Engagement and Preferences

Not all patients prefer remote care. Some still value face-to-face interactions and personal relationships (Peasgood et al., 2023). Tele-nursing works best when patients are motivated to self-manage; those with very low engagement might ignore messages or devices; there have been cases where patients do not take readings or respond, making the telehealth less effective (Lee, Lee, Yoo and Park, 2017; Vhaduri and Prioleau, 2020). A balanced approach often works; many NHS or other telehealth programs combine virtual support with periodic in-person reviews (hybrid model) (Tourkmani et al., 2024; Amutha et al., 2025; NHS England, 2020). Patient acceptability is generally high when tele-nursing supplements rather than completely replaces in-person care (Yu, 2022). Many enjoy the convenience and frequent contact; a study indicated improved patient satisfaction and confidence with telehealth support (The King’s Fund, 2018). Of course, some miss the personal touch or physical examination aspect of in-person visits. That said, tele-nurses often develop rapport over the phone or text, something that patients appreciate; it is more personal than an occasional clinic where you see different clinicians each time. One qualitative insight: patients using Flo felt “cared for” because the system would message them and respond, giving a sense someone is watching out for them (Irwin and De, 2017). This psychosocial benefit is key for chronic disease management.

Impact on Health Equity

Will tele-nursing narrow health outcome gaps or widen them? If implemented thoughtfully, it can narrow gaps by bringing care to those who historically missed out; someone who, say, rarely attended clinic due to job or caring responsibilities can now interact from home. It can also tailor intensity; nurses can allocate more attention to patients struggling with control, giving targeted help remotely (Vaismoradi et al., 2024). However, without support, those lacking digital access or skills could get left further behind, not receiving even standard care if services shift too much to digital. The NHS Digital framework emphasizes inclusive digital healthcare; training patients, providing alternatives, and not mandating digital-only pathways (NHS England, 2023). The ideal scenario is giving the patients choice; patients who like telehealth use it; those who do not can continue traditional care (Morgan et al., 2024). Currently, tele-nursing is mostly opt-in or offered as an addition, which is appropriate. If one day it becomes the primary mode, substantial effort must ensure universal access like subsidized devices, community digital education, etc. Encouragingly, initiatives exist to raise digital literacy among older and low-income adults, showing recognition of this issue (Shams‑Ghahfarokhi, 2025; Dong et al., 2023).

Tele-nursing, therefore, has great potential to improve access because of its convenience and reach to remote patients, and can be delivered in an equitable way; but attention to the digital divide is crucial. Many older adults are capable of using these services, and in fact have embraced some, but a significant minority need continued support. Tele-nursing should not completely replace face-to-face care for those who need it; instead, a flexible, patient-centred approach is needed. So far, the NHS’s telehealth rollouts have been aware of these factors: for example, Flo was deliberately designed to be simple and widely accessible. As tele-nursing scales, parallel efforts to improve digital inclusion like providing training or alternative formats are needed to ensure fairness.

Top UK Assignment Cities

Cost-Effectiveness and System Impact

Tele-nursing’s viability in the NHS also hinges on whether it delivers economic value and efficiency. The NHS faces tight budgets and workforce strains, so any innovation should ideally reduce costs or use resources more efficiently while maintaining or improving care quality.

Reduction in Hospital Visits and Admissions

A key source of potential savings is avoiding expensive acute care and reducing routine face-to-face appointments. Tele-nursing, by improving control and early intervention, can prevent complications that lead to A&E (accident and emergency, commonly known as the Emergency Department) visits or hospital admissions like severe hyperglycaemia, DKA, or cardiovascular events (Asadi, Borhani and Abbaszadeh, 2025). As mentioned by van Berkel et al. 2019, evidence suggests telehealth can reduce emergency admissions by about 20% (22.7% in intervention group, and 25.3% in subgroup). As mentioned earlier, for diabetes, even preventing a few admissions per 100 patients, which can cost several thousand pounds each, amounts to quite a high number of savings. Additionally, fewer urgent GP visits might occur if issues are resolved via remote advice. There is also evidence from the Whole System Demonstrator project that telehealth can slightly reduce mortality and bed days, though results were mixed (Steventon and Bardsley, 2012). Avoiding complications such as retinopathy, amputations, etc. in the long-term is the ultimate goal here, and tele-nursing can contribute to that by better maintenance (Yu, 2022), though quantifying that in short term ROI is hard.

Replacing Clinic Visits

Every in-person diabetes clinic or practice nurse visit has an associated cost like staff time, overhead, or patient travel reimbursements in some cases. If tele-nursing can substitute some of those, it may increase efficiency. For example, instead of a quarterly in-person check, maybe two of those can be done virtually with nurse and only one in person. A study during COVID, when many visits shifted to remote, found that virtual-care maintained outcomes for diabetes at a potentially lower cost (Wong, Wang and Manoharan, 2021). Nurses can often manage more patients per day remotely than in clinic because calls or messages can be shorter than a full visit and there is less room setup/admin overhead. Also, group education sessions have been done via teleconference effectively, reaching more patients with one educator (Vaagan et al., 2023; Theodore and Byrappa, 2015). That said, telehealth is not free; there are platform costs, training, and the time nurses spend texting or calling is still work time. Some analyses have shown telemedicine is cost-effective if it reduces travel and time costs significantly, especially in rural contexts (Snoswell et al., 2020; Patel et al., 2023; Butzner and Cuffee, 2021).

NHS App and Platform Costs

Developing and maintaining digital platforms is an upfront investment. The NHS App, for instance, had development costs and ongoing updates. However, the marginal cost per user is low once it is built. Similarly, Flo is relatively low-cost; it uses SMS (which costs pennies per text) and a cloud system. According to The King’s Fund (2018), Flo is a “low-cost, low-riskinnovation”; trusts only need to buy text bundles, not huge infrastructure. The ROI on Flo was seen as positive since it is cheap to run and can replace costlier interventions, like avoiding a home visit or clinic if an issue can be handled by a text (The King’s Fund, 2018). Many CCGs (Clinical Commissioning Groups) found it affordable and scaled it across multiple conditions (Clarke et al., 2018). Therefore, tele-nursing via such platforms likely saves money or is cost-neutral while improving care. An important point to note here, is that a lot of the tele-nursing model leverages existing workforce (nurses) in a more efficient manner rather than adding new staff (Schwartz et al., 2024). Nurses can manage bigger caseloads when empowered with telehealth tools, as mundane tasks can be automated (for instance, Flo auto-responds “your BP is fine” or alerts only when needed, saving nurse time) (The King’s fund, 2018).

Nurse Workforce Efficiency

The UK has a shortage of diabetes specialist nurses (DSNs) in some areas (Lake et al., 2024). Tele-nursing can extend the reach of these nurses. One DSN can oversee hundreds of patients through periodic remote touches, rather than being limited to those who can come to clinic on a given day. There is an example from a UK hospital where a DSN telemedicine advice service helped avoid admissions and improved outcomes by guiding other healthcare professionals remotely (Evans et al., 2012). By ‘triaging’ issues remotely, nurses can prioritize who truly needs in-person attention. This not only saves costs but also optimizes workload. However, there is a caution: telehealth should ideally reduce workload in other areas; if it ends up as additional work on top of usual care without adjustment, it could strain nurses. The goal is to integrate it such that some tasks are shifted, not duplicated.

Patient Economic Benefits

From a societal perspective, tele-nursing yields patient savings in travel costs, time off work, etc. For instance, a working patient can message their nurse on a break rather than taking half a day to attend a clinic; improving productivity. While not a direct NHS budget impact, it is a health economic benefit. Improved health outcomes also mean patients require fewer expensive treatments for complications like dialysis or surgeries, saving the health system down the line. Here, prevention is cheaper than cure, and tele-nursing, by intensifying preventative management, supports this cost-saving in the long run (Zhou et al., 2025).

Technology Investment vs. Savings

Some might argue that digital monitoring like providing CGMs (Continuous Glucose Monitors) or blood glucose Bluetooth devices costs money (Kraaijeveld, 2021). The NHS has been expanding provision of Flash glucose monitors for eligible Type 2 patients on insulin (NHS England, no date). These devices certainly have a cost but can give better control and reduce complications, which is cost-effective as per a NICE report (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2022). Tele-nursing itself does not mandate those; many patients do fine with standard glucometers and manual entry. But coupling tele-nursing with modern tech like continuous glucose monitors can enhance outcomes such as less hypoglycemia or better time in range, potentially reducing costs like ambulance calls (Beck et al., 2023; Avari et al., 2019; Lau et al., 2024; Rodbard, 2017). NICE now often recommends digital interventions if evidence shows benefit, implying they view them as cost-effective (NICE even publicized Flo’s effectiveness) (NICE, 2020; NHS Highland, 2018; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2019).

Mainstream Viability

If tele-nursing were scaled up, would it strain or relieve NHS budgets? Likely, after initial scaling costs, it saves money or reallocates resources more efficiently. For example, less frequent physical visits could free up clinic capacity for other patients or reduce backlog for GPs (Sinnott et al., 2021). Nurses working remotely might centralize some tasks, meaning smaller clinics can tap into a central tele-nurse service rather than each needing separate full clinics. Telehealth can also operate outside normal hours more easily (asynchronous messaging), offering flexibility (Mosenia et al., 2023). These efficiencies suggest mainstreaming tele-nursing could be part of solving workforce and capacity issues. However, careful design is needed to ensure tele-nurses are not overwhelmed and that technology maintenance is funded.

Evidence of Cost-Effectiveness

There have been cost analyses reviews such as a 2022 systematic review on telemedicine cost-effectiveness in diabetes (Alfarwan et al., 2024). Many found telehealth to be cost-effective, especially when considering long-term outcomes. One study in Diabetic Medicine (Wiley) reported telemedicine interventions were generally cost-saving by reducing HbA1c (less future complications) (Alfarwan et al., 2024). Another analysis indicated primary care clinics realized positive ROI with EHR/telehealth over time (Jang, Lortie and Sanche, 2014); by analogy, tele-nursing should too, once initial setup is done. The cost of SMS or app usage is trivial compared to cost of one hospital admission averted.

Tele-nursing for T2DM, therefore, appears to have a favourable cost-benefit profile; it can reduce expensive acute events, substitute for some in-person care (freeing those resources), and leverage nurse time more effectively. The upfront investments in digital infrastructure are outweighed by the potential savings and quality improvements. From a funding perspective, as long as tele-nursing programs demonstrate at least equal outcomes, the NHS can justify them if they are cost-neutral or better. Early evidence and the continued rollout (presuming NHS England would not be expanding telehealth if it was not seeing value) suggest tele-nursing is indeed a wise investment.

Recommendations

Tele-nursing for type 2 diabetes has proven its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes and has generally been well-received by patients who use it. It also offers efficiency gains and potential cost savings for the NHS. The question remains: is it ready for mainstream adoption across the NHS, and what are the caveats?

Mainstream Viability

Yes, tele-nursing can and should be scaled as a core component of diabetes care, provided certain conditions are met. The pandemic greatly accelerated telehealth adoption, and many patients and providers have crossed the digital Rubicon. Earlier, this research has shown evidence and experience showing that remote diabetes management can achieve outcomes on par with or better than traditional care, and at least a subset of patients prefer it. The NHS has included remote monitoring in its long-term plan for chronic disease management (NHS @home). Large-scale programs (like the NHS DPP, Diabetes Prevention Programme, pivoting to digital during COVID) have shown it is feasible to engage patients widely via technology. So mainstreaming tele-nursing is not a far leap; it is already happening in pockets.

Hybrid Model

Tele-nursing should complement, and not fully replace, in-person care. A hybrid model seems optimal; routine data monitoring and coaching done remotely, with periodic face-to-face or video consultations for comprehensive reviews or when needed. This caters to both tech-savvy and tech-shy patients and leverages the strengths of each approach. For instance, one could envision each patient has an annual in-person review, but quarterly virtual check-ins with nurse through app or phone. This appears to be the direction NHS is heading.

Training and Support

Both patients and staff need support to effectively use telehealth. Some nurses may require training in digital tools and managing care remotely, since they require slightly different skillset like engaging patients without physical presence, using data trends effectively. Patients, especially older ones, might need initial hand-holding; perhaps a “digital health literacy” session when enrolling them. The NHS could deploy digital ambassadors or utilize community resources such as libraries or Age UK volunteers to teach patients how to use the NHS App or Flo. As discovered earlier, digital literacy is pivotal for telemedicine effectiveness. The more the NHS invests in closing digital literacy gaps, the more equitable and widespread tele-nursing’s benefits will be.

Infrastructure and Integration

For tele-nursing to be mainstream, the tools must integrate with NHS systems so that nurses are not duplicating documentation. Reliable IT infrastructure, namely increasing server capacity and ensuring cybersecurity, is essential; any major outages or data breaches could derail trust in telehealth. The NHS needs to ensure its apps and platforms are robust and user-friendly. Interoperability between devices such as glucose monitors and apps would make things smoother too.

Personalization and Stratification

Tele-nursing may not need to apply equally to all diabetics. One can stratify; highly motivated patients or those with moderately uncontrolled diabetes might benefit most from intensive tele-support. Those already very well controlled might be fine with standard care and occasional digital check-ins. Meanwhile, those with very poor control and complex needs might need more face-to-face multidisciplinary intervention. So, mainstreaming it should be done smartly by allocating tele-nursing resources where they have greatest impact. This could include focusing on patients with HbA1c above target, or those who frequently miss appointments in person but might engage remotely. Telehealth should be a tool in the toolbox, not a one-size-fits-all mandate.

Ensuring Continuity and Human Touch

One concern is whether tele-nursing becomes too automated and impersonal. Patients value the relationship with their care provider. The NHS should ensure tele-nursing does not reduce to just bots sending messages; nurse oversight and real human interaction must remain. The Flo example mentioned earlier shows that technology plus a human clinician behind it works best. Maintaining empathy and personal connection through the phone or video is possible and important. The goal, therefore, should be “high tech with high human touch”.

Monitoring and Evaluation

As tele-nursing scales, ongoing evaluation is needed. Are certain groups not enrolling? Are outcomes equal across demographic groups? The NHS should monitor usage data and health outcomes segmented by age, ethnicity, deprivation index, etc., to promptly identify any inequalities emerging so they can be addressed; for example, if older folks lag, maybe implement targeted digital inclusion initiatives and so on. They must also gather patient feedback to refine the services. Telehealth is still evolving, so a continuous improvement approach (Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles in rolling out these services) is advised.

Conclusion

Tele-nursing for type 2 diabetes, therefore is effective, generally cost-efficient, and largely popular among patients, making it a viable strategy to adopt widely. It aligns with the NHS’s move towards more preventive, community-based care and can alleviate pressure on clinics and hospitals. The experience so far, from Flo pilots to virtual wards, indicates that when executed well, tele-nursing can lead to better controlled diabetes, more engaged and confident patients, and potentially fewer complications, all of which are wins for both patients and the health system.

However, it must be rolled out in an inclusive and patient-centric manner; offering tele-nursing as an option that can be tailored, ensuring those who cannot engage digitally are not left out, and preserving the compassionate, holistic care approach that nurses are known for. The NHS’s emphasis on co-designing digital services with patients is crucial here. If these considerations are met, tele-nursing could become a standard component of diabetes care pathways, complementing face-to-face care.

Given the rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes and workforce challenges, tele-nursing is not just an attractive innovation but arguably a necessary evolution to sustain high-quality care. As one study succinctly highlighted, virtual care can increase accessibility and efficiency of diabetes services without sacrificing outcomes; a balance much needed in modern healthcare. Thus, embracing tele-nursing mainstream could help the NHS achieve the triple aim of improved health outcomes, improved patient experience, and more cost-effective care in the realm of diabetes management.

References

Age UK (2024) Facts and figures about digital inclusion and older people: internet use statistics, June 2024. Available at: https://www.ageuk.org.uk/siteassets/documents/reports-and-publications/reports-and-briefings/active-communities/internet-use-statistics-june-2024.pdf (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Alfarwan, N., Hodkinson, A., Panagioti, M., Hassan, L. and Kontopantelis, E., 2024. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of telemedicine among patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetic Medicine, 41(6), e15343. doi:10.1111/dme.15343.

Alsahli, M., Abd‑Alrazaq, A., Fathy, D.M., Abdelmohsen, S.A., Gushgari, O.A., Ghazy, H.K. and Abdelwahed, A.Y. (2025) ‘Effectiveness of patients’ education and telenursing follow‑ups on self‑care practices of patients with diabetes mellitus: cross‑sectional and quasi‑experimental study’, JMIR Nursing, 8(1), p. e67339. doi: 10.2196/67339.

Amutha, A., Reji, S., Hema Aarthi, R., Keertan Rao, S., Ganesan, S., Jebarani, S., Praveen, G., Unnikrishnan, R., Mohan, V. and Anjana, R.M. (2025) ‘Comparison of the effect of teleconsultations, hybrid visits, and in‑person visits on glycemic and metabolic parameters among individuals with type 2 diabetes in India’, Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. Advance online publication, p. 19322968251319333. doi: 10.1177/19322968251319333. PMID: 39968727; PMCID: PMC11840818.

Asadi, E., Borhani, F. and Abbaszadeh, A. (2025) ‘The effect of telenursing follow-up on blood glycosylated hemoglobin and quality of life in the elderly with diabetes type 2’, Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 14(1), p. 31. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1719_23.

Asbath, A., Tanaka, K. and Nakamura, Y. (2025) ‘Tele-nursing: the future of remote care for healthcare efficiency and accessibility’, Journal of World Future Medicine, Health and Nursing, 3(1), pp. 65–74. doi: 10.70177/health.v3i1.1903.

Avari, P., Ramli, R., Reddy, M., Oliver, N. and Fothergill, R. (2019) ‘Rationale and protocol for the assessment of impact of real‑time continuous glucose monitoring on people presenting with severe hypoglycaemia (AIR‑CGM) study’, BMC Endocrine Disorders, 19, 110. doi: 10.1186/s12902-019-0439-3.

Beck, J.K., Allen, R.A., Jeter, K.M., Fisher, R.S., Dattilo, T.M., Traino, K.A., Anderson, M., Cutler, J., Sparling, D.P. (2023) ‘Real‑time continuous glucose monitoring reduced costly diabetes‑related events in adolescents and young adults despite lack of short‑term reduction in HbA₁c’, Pediatric Diabetes, 2023:5253515. doi: 10.1155/2023/5253515.

Butzner, M. and Cuffee, Y. (2021) ‘Telehealth interventions and outcomes across rural communities in the United States: narrative review’, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(8), p. e29575. doi: 10.2196/29575.

Chaudhry, T., Ormandy, P. and Vasilica, C. (2024) ‘Using FLO text-messages to enhance health behaviours and self‑management of long‑term conditions in South‑Asian patients’, Digital Health, 10, pp. 1–? doi: 10.1177/20552076241242558.

Chen, Y., Zhou, T., Su, L., Guo, Y. and Ke, X. (2025) ‘Effects of nurse‑led telephone interventions on HbA1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta‑analysis-based evaluation of follow‑up protocols’, BMC Nursing, 24, 284. doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-02782-x.

Clarke, M., Fursse, J., Brown‑Connolly, N.E., Sharma, U. and Jones, R. (2018) ‘Evaluation of the National Health Service (NHS) Direct Pilot Telehealth Program: cost‑effectiveness analysis’, Telemedicine and e‑Health, 24(1), pp. 67–76. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2016.0280.

Coman, L.-I., Ianculescu, M., Paraschiv, E.-A., Alexandru, A. and Bădărău, I.-A. (2024) ‘Smart solutions for diet‑related disease management: Connected care, remote health monitoring systems, and integrated insights for advanced evaluation’, Applied Sciences, 14(6), p.2351. doi: 10.3390/app14062351.

Cottrell, E., McMillan, K. and Chambers, R. (2012) ‘A cross-sectional survey and service evaluation of simple telehealth in primary care: what do patients think?’, BMJ Open, 2(6), e001392. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001392.

Dávalos, M.E., French, M.T., Burdick, A.E. and Simmons, S.C. (2009) ‘Economic evaluation of telemedicine: review of the literature and research guidelines for benefit–cost analysis’, Telemedicine and e-Health, 15(10), pp. 933–948. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0067.

De Groot, J., Wu, D., Flynn, D., Robertson, D., Grant, G. and Sun, J. (2021) ‘Efficacy of telemedicine on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis’, World Journal of Diabetes, 12(2), pp. 170–197. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v12.i2.170.

Deoli, A. and Zeng, B. (2022) Digital literacy, telehealth equity, and healthcare access are interrelated: here is how. New Jersey State Policy Lab. Published 1 December. Available at: https://policylab.rutgers.edu/publication/digital-literacy-telehealth-equity-and-healthcare-access-are-interrelated-here-is-how/ (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Diabetes Research & Wellness Foundation (2023) ‘Number of people living with diabetes in UK hits 5 million’, Diabetes Research & Wellness Foundation – News and Events, 15 May. Available at: https://www.drwf.org.uk/news-and-events/news/number-of-people-living-with-diabetes-recorded-at-5-million-in-uk/ (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Dong, Q., Liu, T., Liu, R., Yang, H. and Liu, C. (2023) ‘Effectiveness of digital health literacy interventions in older adults: single‑arm meta‑analysis’, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, p. e48166. doi: 10.2196/48166.

Evans, N.R., Richardson, L.S., Dhatariya, K.K. and Sampson, M.J. (2012) ‘Diabetes specialist nurse telemedicine: admissions avoidance, costs and casemix’, European Diabetes Nursing, 9(1), pp. 17–21. doi: 10.1002/edn.198.

Florence Community (no date) Flo: improving patient safety through technology. Available at: https://florence.community/flo-improving-patient-safety-through-technology/ (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Fonda, S.J., Bursell, S.-E., Lewis, D.G., Garren, J., Hock, K. and Cavallerano, J. (2007) ‘The relationship of a diabetes telehealth eye care program to standard eye care and change in diabetes health outcomes’, Telemedicine and e-Health, 13(6), pp. 601–607. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2007.0025.

Hilty, D.M., Crawford, A., Teshima, J., Nasatir-Hilty, S.E., Luo, J., Chisler, L.S., Gutierrez Hilty, Y.S., Servis, M.E., Godbout, R., Lim, R.F. and Lu, F.G. (2021) ‘Mobile health and cultural competencies as a foundation for telehealth care: scoping review’, Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 6, pp. 197–230. doi: 10.1007/s41347-020-00180-5.

Hodgson, S., Williamson, A., Bigossi, M., Stow, D., Jacobs, B.M., Samuel, M., Gafton, J., Zöllner, J., Spreckley, M. and Langenberg, C. (2025) ‘Genetic basis of early onset and progression of type 2 diabetes in South Asians’, Nature Medicine, 31(1), pp. 323–331. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-03317-8.

Hopp, F.P., Hogan, M.M., Woodbridge, P.A. and Lowery, J.C. (2007) ‘The use of telehealth for diabetes management: a qualitative study of telehealth provider perceptions’, Implementation Science, 2, 14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-2-14.

Hwang, M. and Chang, A.K. (2023) ‘The effect of nurse‐led digital health interventions on blood pressure control for people with hypertension: A systematic review and meta‐analysis’, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 55(5), pp. 1020–1035. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12882.

Irwin, S. and De, P. (2017) ‘Use of an innovative Technology Enabled Care service (TECS): “Florence” to empower patients and enhance adherence to BP treatments in diabetes’, Endocrine Abstracts, 49, EP584. doi: 10.1530/endoabs.49.EP584.

Ju, H.H., Momin, R., Cron, S., Jularbal, J., Alford, J. and Johnson, C. (2023) ‘A nurse-led telehealth program for diabetes foot care: feasibility and usability study’, JMIR Nursing, 6(1), p. e40000. doi: 10.2196/40000.

Keenan, A. (2022) Promise and peril: Applying ethical principles in telehealth practice to improve service delivery for clinicians and patients (Doctoral dissertation, Flinders University, College of Medicine and Public Health). Available at: https://flex.flinders.edu.au/file/fd3a8306-4fa7-4350-948a-b649489ff7b4/1/AJKeenan_Final%20Thesis_Review_COMPLETE.pdf (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Kraaijeveld, S.R. (2021) ‘Continuous glucose monitoring as a matter of justice’, HEC Forum, 33(4), pp. 345–370. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/s10730-020-09413-9.

Lake, A.K., Camfield, L., Epps, A., Holder, D., Johnston, P., Kenney, V., Payne, L., Stelmaszczyk, W. and Walden, E. (2024) ‘A survey of the UK diabetes inpatient specialist nurse workforce, 2023’, Journal of Diabetes Nursing, 28(4). Available at: https://diabetesonthenet.com/wp-content/uploads/JDN_28-4_JDN339.pdf (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Lau, D., Manca, D.P., Singh, P., Perry, T., Olu-Jordan, I., Zhang, J.R., Rahim, G., Hagen, E.M. and Yeung, R.O. (2024) ‘The effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring with remote telemonitoring‑enabled virtual educator visits in adults with non‑insulin dependent type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial’, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 217, 111899. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2024.111899.

Law, L., Kelly, J.T., Savill, H., Wallen, M.P., Hickman, I.J., Erku, D. and Mayr, H.L. (2024) ‘Cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered diet and exercise interventions: a systematic review’, Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 30(3), pp. 420–437. doi: 10.1177/1357633X211070721.

Lee, M.-K. et al. (2017) ‘Impact of initial active engagement in self-monitoring with a telemonitoring device on glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes’, Scientific Reports, 7, 3866. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-03842-2.

Lee, P.A., Greenfield, G. and Pappas, Y. (2018) ‘Patients’ perception of using telehealth for type 2 diabetes management: a phenomenological study’, BMC Health Services Research, 18, 549. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3353-x.

Li, Y., Guo, Y., Hong, Y.A., Zeng, Y., Monroe-Wise, A., Zeng, C., Zhu, M., Zhang, H., Qiao, J., Xu, Z. and Cai, W. (2022) ‘Dose–response effects of patient engagement on health outcomes in an mHealth intervention: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial’, JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 10(1), p. e25586. doi: 10.2196/25586.

Marlina et al. (2023) ‘The effectiveness of telenursing for diabetes self‑management education: a scoping review’, The Open Nursing Journal, 17. Available through ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374159776_The_Effectiveness_of_Telenursing_for_Diabetes_Self-management_Education_A_Scoping_Review (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Massey, M.N. and Devi, M.S. (2025) ‘Exploring the scope and challenges of telehealth integration in Indian nursing practice: a critical review’, American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 28(5), pp. 486–490. doi: 10.69980/ajpr.v28i5.430.

Morgan, J.W., Salmon, M.K., Ambady, M., Piazza, K.M., Rhodes, C.M., Eneanya, N.D., Shea, J.A. and Grande, D. (2024) ‘Factors informing high-risk primary care patient choice around telehealth use: a framework’, Journal of General Internal Medicine, 39(4), pp. 540–548. doi: 10.1007/s11606-023-08491-y.

Mosenia, A., Li, P., Seefeldt, R., Seitzman, G.D., Sun, C.Q. and Kim, T.N., 2023. Longitudinal use of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic and utility of asynchronous testing for subspecialty-level ophthalmic care. JAMA Ophthalmology, 141(1), pp.56–61. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.4984.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2019) Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies. March. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/our-programmes/evidence-standards-framework/digital-evidence-standards-framework.pdf (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022) Type 2 diabetes in adults: management – economic modelling for continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes (NICE guideline NG28, economic model report). Published March. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/evidence/economic-model-report-pdf-11013295213 (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

NHS England (2014) TECS case study 002: Florence text messaging to monitor a range of conditions. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/tecs-flo.pdf (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

NHS England (2020) Supporting care with remote monitoring – Technology for the NHS. Available at: https://transform.england.nhs.uk/covid-19-response/technology-nhs/supporting-the-innovation-collaboratives-to-expand-their-remote-monitoring-plans/ (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

NHS England (2020) Virtual clinics in Highly Specialised Services (HSS). Available at: NHS England https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/virtual-clinics-in-highly-specialised-services-hss-guidance-for-services-supporting-patients-with-rare-and-complex-and-multi-system-disorders/ (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

NHS England (2023) Inclusive digital healthcare: a framework for NHS action on digital inclusion. Published 28 September. Last updated 1 March 2024. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/inclusive-digital-healthcare-a-framework-for-nhs-action-on-digital-inclusion/ (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

NHS England (no date) Glucose monitoring for patients living with diabetes. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/diabetes/digital-innovations-to-support-diabetes-outcomes/flash-glucose-monitoring/ (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

NHS England (no date) NHS @home. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/nhs-at-home/ (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

NHS Highland (2018) Evaluation of the use of Florence within NHS Highland. Jones, F.M. (Technology Enabled Care Project Support Officer) April. Available at: https://generatedhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Use-of-Florence-within-NHS-Highland-April-2018.pdf (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

NICE (2020) Behaviour change: digital and mobile health interventions (NICE Guideline NG183). Published 7 October. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng183 (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Office for National Statistics (2023) Time use in the UK: 23 September to 1 October 2023. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/timeuseintheuk/23septemberto1october2023 (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Patel, K.B., Turner, K., Tabriz, A.A., Gonzalez, B.D., Oswald, L.B., Nguyen, O.T., Hong, Y.R., Jim, H.S.L., Nichols, A.C., Wang, X., Robinson, E., Naso, C. and Spiess, P.E. (2023) ‘Estimated indirect cost savings of using telehealth among nonelderly patients with cancer’, JAMA Network Open, 6(1), p. e2250211. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50211.

Peasgood, T., Bourke, M., Devlin, N., Rowen, D., Yang, Y. and Dalziel, K. (2023) ‘Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states’, Social Science & Medicine, 323, p. 115818. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115818.

Peckham, S. (2023) Evaluation of government commitments made on the digitisation of the NHS: Fourth Special Report of Session 2022–23, HC 780. London: House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee. Available at: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/100265/1/Evaluation%20of%20Government%20commitments%20made%20on%20the%20digestion%20of%20the%20NHS.pdf (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Ravi, S., Meyerowitz-Katz, G., Yung, C., Chen, X., Singh, R. and Liu, J. (2025) ‘Effect of virtual care in type 2 diabetes management – a systematic umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis’, BMC Health Services Research, 25, 348. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12496-0.

Reidy, C., Papoutsi, C., KC, S., Taylor, J., McCaldin, T. and Greenhalgh, T. (2025) ‘Qualitative evaluation of the implementation and national roll-out of the NHS App in England’, BMC Medicine, 23, 20. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03842-w.

Robbins, T., Hopper, A., Brophy, J., Pearson, E., Suthantirakumar, R., Vankad, M., Igharo, N., Baitule, S., Clark, C.C.T., Arvanitis, T.N., Sankar, S., Kyrou, I. and Randeva, H. (2022) ‘Digitally enabled flash glucose monitoring for inpatients with COVID-19: feasibility and pilot implementation in a teaching NHS hospital in the UK’, Digital Health, 8, pp. 1–7. doi: 10.1177/20552076211059350.

Rodbard, D. (2017) ‘Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of recent studies demonstrating improved glycemic outcomes’, Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 19(suppl 3), S‑25–S‑37. doi: 10.1089/dia.2017.0035.

Sah, P.K. (2022) ‘English medium instruction in South Asia’s multilingual schools: unpacking the dynamics of ideological orientations, policy/practices, and democratic questions’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(2), pp. 742–755. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2020.1718591.

Schwartz, R.L., Hamlin, S.K., Vozzella, G.M., Randle, L.N., Klahn, S., Maris, G.J. and Waterman, A.D. (2024) ‘Utilizing telenursing to supplement acute care nursing in an era of workforce shortages: a feasibility pilot’, CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 42(2), pp. 151–157. doi: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000001097.

Shams‑Ghahfarokhi, Z. (2025) ‘Challenges in health and technological literacy of older adults: a qualitative study in Isfahan’, BMC Geriatrics, 25, 247. doi: 10.1186/s12877-025-05893-x.

Sinnott, C., Moxey, J.M., Marjanovic, S., Leach, B., Hocking, L., Ball, S., Georgiadis, A., Lamé, G., Willars, J. and Dixon-Woods, M., 2021. Identifying how GPs spend their time and the obstacles they face: a mixed-methods study. British Journal of General Practice, 71(712), pp.698–706. doi:10.3399/BJGP.2021.0357.

Snoswell, C.L., Taylor, M.L., Comans, T.A., Smith, A.C., Gray, L.C. and Caffery, L.J. (2020) ‘Determining if telehealth can reduce health system costs: scoping review’, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(10), p. e17298. doi: 10.2196/17298.

Steventon, A. and Bardsley, M. (2012) The impact of telehealth on use of hospital care and mortality: research summary. Nuffield Trust, June. Available at: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-01/impact-telehealth-on-hospital-care-mortality-web-final.pdf (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Sun, C.A., Shenk, Z., Renda, S., Maruthur, N., Zheng, S., Perrin, N., Levin, S. and Han, H.R. (2023) ‘Experiences and perceptions of telehealth visits in diabetes care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic among adults with type 2 diabetes and their providers: qualitative study’, JMIR Diabetes, 8, p. e44283. doi: 10.2196/44283.

Sunnemark, V. and Goodier, M. (2024) ‘Over‑70s are UK’s most online adults after twentysomethings, survey shows’, The Guardian, 5 January. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/05/over-70s-online-time-ons-survey (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

The King’s Fund (2018) Florence: telehealth for long-term conditions. Available at: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/articles/telehealth-long-term-conditions (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Theodore, D.D. and Byrappa, P.L. (2015) ‘Telenursing in contemporary practice’, Indian Journal of Continuing Nursing Education, 16(1), pp. 11–16. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/ijcn/fulltext/2015/16010/telenursing_in_contemporary_practice.1.aspx (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Tourkmani, A.M., Alharbi, T.J., BinRsheed, A.M., Alotaibi, A.F., Aleissa, M.S., Alotaibi, S., Almutairi, A.S., Thomson, J., Alshahrani, A.S., Alroyli, H.S., Almutairi, H.M., Aladwani, M.A., Alsheheri, E.R., Sati, H.S., Aljuaid, B., Algarzai, A.S., Alabood, A., Bushnag, R.A., Ghabban, W., Albaik, M., Aldahan, S., Redda, D., Almalki, A., Almousa, N., Aljehani, M. and Alrasheedy, A.A. (2024) ‘A hybrid model of in-person and telemedicine diabetes education and care for management of patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus: findings and implications from a multicenter prospective study’, Telemedicine Reports, 5(1), pp. 46–57. doi: 10.1089/tmr.2024.0003.

Truong Van Dat, Van Binh, Thai Minh Hoang, Vo Linh Tu, Pham Dinh Luyen and Le Thi Kim Anh (2024) ‘The effectiveness of telemedicine in the management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review’, SAGE Open Medicine, doi: 10.1177/20503121241271846.

UK Government (2024) NHS App overhaul will break down barriers to healthcare and reduce inequalities. GOV.UK, 9 May. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-app-overhaul-will-break-down-barriers-to-healthcare-and-reduce-inequalities (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Vaagan, A., Haaland-Øverby, M., Eriksen, A.A., Fredriksen, K., Stenov, V., Varsi, C., Ingadóttir, B., Cleal, B.R., Alvheim, A.R., Westermann, K.F., Strømme, H. and Kristjansdottir, Ó.B. (2023) ‘Group-based patient education via videoconference: a scoping review’, Patient Education and Counseling, 116, p. 108026. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.108026.

Vaismoradi, M., Rae, J., Turunen, H. and Logan, P.A. (2024) ‘Specialized nurses’ role in ensuring patient safety within the context of telehealth in home care: a scoping review’, Digital Health, 10, p. 20552076241287272. doi: 10.1177/20552076241287272.

van Berkel, C., Almond, P., Hughes, C., Smith, M., Horsfield, D. and Duckworth, H. (2019) ‘Retrospective observational study of the impact on emergency admission of telehealth at scale delivered in community care in Liverpool, UK’, BMJ Open, 9(7), p. e028981. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-028981.

Vhaduri, S. and Prioleau, T. (2020) ‘Adherence to personal health devices: a case study in diabetes management’, arXiv, 2006.04947. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04947 (Accessed: 27 June 2025).

Watson, A., McConnell, D. and Coates, V. (2021) ‘Reducing unscheduled hospital care for adults with diabetes following a hypoglycaemic event: which community‑based interventions are most effective? A systematic review’, Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders, 20(1), pp. 1033–1050. doi: 10.1007/s40200-021-00817-z.

Whicher, C.A., O’Neill, S. and Holt, R.G. (2020) ‘Diabetes in the UK: 2019’, Diabetic Medicine, 37(2), pp. 242–247. doi: 10.1111/dme.14225.

Wong, V.W., Wang, A. and Manoharan, M. (2021) ‘Utilisation of telehealth for outpatient diabetes management during COVID‑19 pandemic: how did the patients fare?’, Internal Medicine Journal, 51(12), pp. 2021–2026. doi: 10.1111/imj.15441.

Yu, P. (2021) ‘Telenursing’, in Gu, D. and Dupre, M.E. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-22009-9_457.

Zhou, J., Fan, X., Xie, Q., Qi, H. and Luo, Z. (2025) ‘Tele‑nursing awareness, needs, and related influences in T2DM patients: qualitative descriptive study’, BMC Nursing, 24(1), p. 468. doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-03048-2.

Explore Recent Blogs