Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:41:22.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating telemedicine: A focus on patient pathways

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2006

Jane Coughlan ,
Julie Eatock  and
Tillal Eldabi
Jane Coughlan
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Julie Eatock
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Tillal Eldabi
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evaluations of telemedicine have sought to assess various measures of effectiveness (e.g., diagnostic accuracy), efficiency (e.g., cost), and engagement (e.g., patient satisfaction) to determine its success. Few studies, however, have looked at evaluating the organizational impact of telemedicine, which involves technology and process changes that affect the way that it is used and accepted by patients and clinicians alike. This study reviews and discusses the conceptual issues in telemedicine research and proposes a fresh approach for evaluating telemedicine. First, we advance a patient pathway perspective, as most of the existing studies view telemedicine as a support to a singular rather than multiple aspects of a health care process. Second, to conceptualize patient pathways and understand how telemedicine impacts upon them, we propose simulation as a tool to enhance understanding of the traditional and telemedicine patient pathway.

Keywords

Clinical pathwaysComputer simulationEvaluationTelemedicinePatients
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 136 - 142
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aoki N, Dunn K, Johnson-Throop KA, Turley JP. 2003 Outcomes and methods in telemedicine evaluation. Telemed J E Health. 9: 393– 401.Google Scholar
Bangert D, Doktor R, Warren J. 1999. Evaluating the organizational impact of telemedicine for project akamai. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'99); CD-ROM Version.
Barnes CD, Quiason JL, Benson C, McGuiness D. 1997: Success stories in simulation in health care. In: Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference; 1280– 1285.
Bashshur RL, Reardon TG, Shannon GW. 2000 Telemedicine: A new health care delivery system. Annu Rev Public Health. 21: 613– 637.Google Scholar
Bishop JE, O'Reilly RL, Maddox K, Hutchinson LJ. 2002 Client satisfaction in a feasibility study comparing face-to-face interviews with telepsychiatry. J Telemed Telecare. 8: 217– 221.Google Scholar
Cameron AE, Bashshur RL, Halbritter K, Johnson EM, Cameron JW. 1998 Simulation methodology for estimating financial effects of telemedicine in West Virginia. Telemed J. 4: 125– 144.Google Scholar
Chu S, Cesnik B. 1998 Improving clinical pathway design: Lessons learned from a computerised prototype. Int J Med Inf. 51: 1– 11.Google Scholar
Craig JJ, McConville JP, Patterson VH, Wootton R. 1999 Neurological examination is possible using telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 5: 177– 181.Google Scholar
Eldabi T, Irani Z, Paul RJ, Love PED. 2002 Quantitative and qualitative decision-making methods in simulation modelling. Management Decis. 40: 64– 73.Google Scholar
Eldabi TA, Paul RJ, Taylor SJE. 2000 Simulating economic factors in adjuvant breast cancer treatment. J Oper Res Soc. 51: 465– 475.Google Scholar
Fone D, Hollinghurst S, Temple M, et al. 2003 Systematic review of the use and value of computer simulation modelling in population health and health care delivery. J Public Health Med. 25: 325– 335.Google Scholar
Hailey D, Roine R, Ohinmaa A. 2002 Systematic review of evidence for the benefits of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 8: 1– 30.Google Scholar
Hanneman R, Patrick S. 2005. On the uses of computer-assisted simulation modeling in the social sciences. Sociological Research Online. Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/2/5.html. Accessed December 13
Hayes WS, Tohme WG, Komo D, et al. 1998 A telemedicine consultative service for the evaluation of patients with urolithiasis. Urology. 51: 39– 43.Google Scholar
Hersh WR, Helfand M, Wallace J, et al. 2005. Clinical outcomes resulting from telemedicine interventions: A systematic review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/1/5. Accessed December 13
Institute of Medicine. 1996. Telemedicine: A guide to assessing telecommunications in health care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press;
Lehoux P, Sicotte C, Denis J-L, Berg M, Lacroix A. 2002 The theory of use behind telemedicine: How compatible with physicians' clinical routines? Soc Sci Med. 54: 889– 904.Google Scholar
Loane M, Wootton R. 2001 A simulation model for analysing patient activity in dermatology. J Telemed Telecare. 7 (Suppl 1): 23– 25.Google Scholar
Mair F, Whitten P. 2000 Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. Br Med J. 320: 1517– 1520.Google Scholar
Miyasaka K, Suzuki Y, Sakai H, Kondo Y. 2005. Interactive communication in high-technology home care: Videophones for pediatric ventilatory care. Pediatrics. Available at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/99/1/e1. Accessed December 13
Nordal EJ, Moseng D, Kvammen B, Lochen M-L. 2001 A comparative study of teleconsultations versus face-to-face consultations. J Telemed Telecare. 7: 257– 265.Google Scholar
Phipps B. 1999: Hitting the bottleneck. Health Management Magazine. 1– 3.
Renholm M, Leino-Kilpi H, Suominen T. 2002 Critical pathways: A systematic review. J Nurs Adm. 32: 196– 202.Google Scholar
Robinson S. 2002 Modes of simulation practice: Approaches to business and military simulation. Simulat Pract Theory. 10: 513– 523.Google Scholar
Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. 2001 Assessing telemedicine: A systematic review of the literature. Can Med Assoc J. 165: 765– 771.Google Scholar
Sicotte C, Lehoux P. 2003 Teleconsultation: Rejected and emerging uses. Methods Inf Med. 4: 451– 457.Google Scholar
The Lewin Group. 2000. Assessment of approaches to evaluating telemedicine, final report to the office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Department of Health and Human Services, Contract Number HHS-10-97-0012, December
Whitten PS, Mair F, Haycox A, et al. 2002 Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. Br Med J. 324: 1434– 1437.Google Scholar