Who and How: Telemedicine Eligibility and Participant Guidelines in the Ambulatory Setting

Tracy Jalbuena, Rebecca Hemphill, Megan F. Selvitelli, Jasmine Bishop, Adam Ouellette, R. Alfiero
{"title":"Who and How: Telemedicine Eligibility and Participant Guidelines in the Ambulatory Setting","authors":"Tracy Jalbuena, Rebecca Hemphill, Megan F. Selvitelli, Jasmine Bishop, Adam Ouellette, R. Alfiero","doi":"10.46804/2641-2225.1123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Telehealth use has dramatically increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet there are significant gaps in evidence regarding the clinical appropriateness of synchronous visits for ambulatory telemedicine that are under the umbrella of telehealth and defined as video appointments between patients and providers. As a result, there are few sensible guidelines for day-to-day practice, resulting in a lack of standardization and risk of suboptimal care. Methods: We developed patient inclusion/exclusion guidelines for use in ambulatory telemedicine. Complementary tools included guides on patient preparation, telemedicine physical exam, and provider etiquette. We analyzed telemedicine use by practice type and surveyed a subset of MaineHealth ambulatory practices regarding the applicability of the guidelines. Results: Volume and specialty distribution data show that although telemedicine volume increased significantly, use varied by specialty. Behavioral health providers used telemedicine the most, followed by primary care, medical specialties, and, finally, surgical specialties. Stratification intensified as restrictions on in-person care declined. Discussion: We observed the expected pattern of use by specialty type, given our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Although these criteria may be conceptually straightforward, implementation is not. We operationalized these concepts to ensure individual practices can adapt and implement these insights in a reproducible and predictable way, leading to increased standardization across the health system. Conclusions: Clinical teams need help determining how to best use telemedicine tools. Here, we provide practice-level guidelines focused on practical implementation. We hope this communication advances the effort to develop standards of care for telemedicine indications.","PeriodicalId":93781,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Maine Medical Center","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Maine Medical Center","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46804/2641-2225.1123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Telehealth use has dramatically increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet there are significant gaps in evidence regarding the clinical appropriateness of synchronous visits for ambulatory telemedicine that are under the umbrella of telehealth and defined as video appointments between patients and providers. As a result, there are few sensible guidelines for day-to-day practice, resulting in a lack of standardization and risk of suboptimal care. Methods: We developed patient inclusion/exclusion guidelines for use in ambulatory telemedicine. Complementary tools included guides on patient preparation, telemedicine physical exam, and provider etiquette. We analyzed telemedicine use by practice type and surveyed a subset of MaineHealth ambulatory practices regarding the applicability of the guidelines. Results: Volume and specialty distribution data show that although telemedicine volume increased significantly, use varied by specialty. Behavioral health providers used telemedicine the most, followed by primary care, medical specialties, and, finally, surgical specialties. Stratification intensified as restrictions on in-person care declined. Discussion: We observed the expected pattern of use by specialty type, given our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Although these criteria may be conceptually straightforward, implementation is not. We operationalized these concepts to ensure individual practices can adapt and implement these insights in a reproducible and predictable way, leading to increased standardization across the health system. Conclusions: Clinical teams need help determining how to best use telemedicine tools. Here, we provide practice-level guidelines focused on practical implementation. We hope this communication advances the effort to develop standards of care for telemedicine indications.
谁和如何:门诊环境中的远程医疗资格和参与者指南
简介:由于新冠肺炎大流行,远程医疗的使用急剧增加。然而,在远程医疗的保护伞下,被定义为患者和提供者之间的视频预约的门诊远程医疗同步就诊的临床适当性方面,证据存在重大差距。因此,日常实践几乎没有合理的指导方针,导致缺乏标准化和次优护理的风险。方法:我们制定了用于门诊远程医疗的患者纳入/排除指南。补充工具包括关于患者准备、远程医疗体检和提供者礼仪的指南。我们按实践类型分析了远程医疗的使用,并就指南的适用性调查了MaineHealth门诊实践的子集。结果:数量和专业分布数据显示,尽管远程医疗数量显著增加,但使用情况因专业而异。行为健康提供者使用远程医疗最多,其次是初级保健、医疗专业,最后是外科专业。随着对亲自护理的限制减少,分层现象加剧。讨论:根据我们的纳入/排除标准,我们观察到了按专业类型划分的预期使用模式。尽管这些标准在概念上可能很简单,但实现却并非如此。我们将这些概念付诸实践,以确保个人实践能够以可复制和可预测的方式适应和实施这些见解,从而提高整个卫生系统的标准化程度。结论:临床团队需要帮助确定如何最好地使用远程医疗工具。在这里,我们提供了注重实际执行的实践级指导方针。我们希望这次交流能推动制定远程医疗适应症护理标准的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信