{"title":"Key Considerations in Ensuring a Safe Regional Telehealth Care Model: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Siggy Haveland, Shahidul Islam","doi":"10.1089/tmj.2020.0580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>\n <b>\n <i>Background:</i>\n </b>\n <i>This literature review sets out to increase the knowledge on patient safety within the telehealth modality of care, to inform the relevant local health service departments on the key considerations to minimize patient harm.</i>\n <b>\n <i>Methods:</i>\n </b>\n <i>A systematic search in Medline and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar, and the University of New England (UNE) Library Search was conducted. A combination of key terms \"Telehealth\" OR \"Telecare\" OR \"Telemedicine\" AND \"patient safety\" AND \"rural\" was used. Based on the screening and eligibility criteria, 21 peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2015 and 2020 were included in the review.</i>\n <b>\n <i>Results and Discussion:</i>\n </b>\n <i>On evaluating the included studies, three main themes and various corresponding subthemes emerged. The main themes were that of telehealth experience (TE), telehealth outcomes (TO), and telehealth risks (TR), with the corresponding subthemes of telehealth experience from a patient perspective (TE-PT), telehealth experience from a carer perspective (TE-CR), telehealth experience from a clinician perspective (TE-CN), positive telehealth (TO-P), and negative telehealth outcomes (TO-N), and patient (TR-PT) and clinician telehealth risks (TR-CN).</i>\n <b>\n <i>Conclusions:</i>\n </b>\n <i>The results suggest that patients generally have positive experiences and are accepting telehealth as a modality of care. Furthermore, patient outcomes appear to be comparable with in-person care, with additional benefits of lower costs to both the service and patients.</i>\n </p>","PeriodicalId":520784,"journal":{"name":"Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association","volume":" ","pages":"602-612"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2020.0580","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background:This literature review sets out to increase the knowledge on patient safety within the telehealth modality of care, to inform the relevant local health service departments on the key considerations to minimize patient harm.Methods:A systematic search in Medline and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar, and the University of New England (UNE) Library Search was conducted. A combination of key terms "Telehealth" OR "Telecare" OR "Telemedicine" AND "patient safety" AND "rural" was used. Based on the screening and eligibility criteria, 21 peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2015 and 2020 were included in the review.Results and Discussion:On evaluating the included studies, three main themes and various corresponding subthemes emerged. The main themes were that of telehealth experience (TE), telehealth outcomes (TO), and telehealth risks (TR), with the corresponding subthemes of telehealth experience from a patient perspective (TE-PT), telehealth experience from a carer perspective (TE-CR), telehealth experience from a clinician perspective (TE-CN), positive telehealth (TO-P), and negative telehealth outcomes (TO-N), and patient (TR-PT) and clinician telehealth risks (TR-CN).Conclusions:The results suggest that patients generally have positive experiences and are accepting telehealth as a modality of care. Furthermore, patient outcomes appear to be comparable with in-person care, with additional benefits of lower costs to both the service and patients.
背景:本文献综述旨在提高远程医疗护理方式中患者安全方面的知识,告知相关地方卫生服务部门减少患者伤害的关键考虑因素。方法:系统检索Medline、chinese journal Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)、谷歌Scholar、New England University Library search (UNE)。使用了“远程保健”、“远程医疗”或“远程医疗”、“患者安全”和“农村”等关键词的组合。根据筛选和资格标准,2015年至2020年期间发表的21篇英文同行评议文章被纳入评审。结果与讨论:在评价纳入的研究时,出现了三个主要主题和各种相应的副主题。主要主题为远程医疗体验(TE)、远程医疗结果(TO)和远程医疗风险(TR),相应的子主题为患者视角的远程医疗体验(TE- pt)、护理者视角的远程医疗体验(TE- cr)、临床医生视角的远程医疗体验(TE- cn)、积极远程医疗结果(TO- p)和消极远程医疗结果(TO- n),以及患者(TR- pt)和临床医生远程医疗风险(TR- cn)。结论:结果表明,患者普遍有积极的经验,并接受远程医疗作为一种模式的护理。此外,患者的结果似乎与亲自护理相当,对服务和患者都有更低成本的额外好处。