Dataset Information

Internet videoconferencing for patient-clinician consultations in long-term conditions: A review of reviews and applications in line with guidelines and recommendations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of internet videoconferencing in healthcare settings is widespread, reflecting the normalisation of this mode of communication in society and current healthcare policy. As the use of internet videoconferencing is growing, increasing numbers of reviews of literature are published.

Methods

The authors conducted a review of the existing reviews of literature relating to the use of internet videoconferencing for consultations between healthcare professionals and patients with long-term conditions in their own home. The review was followed with an assessment of United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for patient care in the context of common long-term illnesses to examine where videoconferencing could be implemented in line with these recommendations.

Results

The review of reviews found no formal evidence in favour of or against the use of internet videoconferencing. Patients were satisfied with the use of videoconferencing but there was limited evidence that it led to a change in health outcomes. Evidence of healthcare professional satisfaction when using this mode of communication with patients was limited. The review of guidelines suggested a number of opportunities for adoption and expansion of internet videoconferencing. Implementing videoconferencing in line with current evidence for patient care could offer support and provide information on using a communication channel that suits individual patient needs and circumstances. The evidence base for videoconferencing is growing, but there is still a lack of data relating to cost, ethics and safety.

Conclusions

While the current evidence base for internet videoconferencing is equivocal, it is likely to change as more research is undertaken and evidence published. With more videoconferencing services added in more contexts, research needs to explore how internet videoconferencing can be implemented in ways that it is valued by patients and clinicians, and how it can fit within organisational and technical infrastructure of the healthcare services.

SUBMITTER: Ignatowicz A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6495459 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Internet videoconferencing for patient-clinician consultations in long-term conditions: A review of reviews and applications in line with guidelines and recommendations.

Ignatowicz Agnieszka A Atherton Helen H Bernstein Celia Janine CJ Bryce Carol C Court Rachel R Sturt Jackie J Griffiths Frances F

Digital health 20190101

<h4>Background</h4>The use of internet videoconferencing in healthcare settings is widespread, reflecting the normalisation of this mode of communication in society and current healthcare policy. As the use of internet videoconferencing is growing, increasing numbers of reviews of literature are published.<h4>Methods</h4>The authors conducted a review of the existing reviews of literature relating to the use of internet videoconferencing for consultations between healthcare professionals and pat ...[more]

PMID: 31069105

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceInpatient subspecialty consultations, a common and expensive practice within inpatient medicine, do not always go well; however, little is known about the failure modes of consultation, thus making it difficult to identify interventions to improve consultation quality.ObjectiveTo understand how stakeholders envision the ideal inpatient consultation and identify how and why consultations commonly fall short of this ideal.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used in-depth, semistructured interviews collected from April to October 2017 and analyzed from January 2018 to February 2020 using conventional content analysis. The setting was a single academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were hospitalists and specialists who had requested or performed a consultation for a non-intensive care unit patient in the previous 4 months, patients who had received a consultation while hospitalized at the medical center in the previous 15 months, and family members of such patients.Main outcomes and measuresConsultation experiences reported by participants. Clinicians were asked about characteristics of the ideal consultation, positive and negative consultation experiences, costs and benefits, and suggested improvements. Patients and family members were asked about their consultation experience, changes in care, communication preferences, and suggested improvements.ResultsThe study included 38 participants: 17 specialists, 13 hospitalists, 4 patients, and 4 family members. More than half (21 of 38) of the participants were female. There were 11 key information exchanges identified that occur among the specialist team, primary team, and patient/family during an ideal consultation. These exchanges are time sensitive and primarily carried out through unwritten protocols. We also identified 6 defects (process failures) that commonly derail information exchanges (complete omission, exclusion of a key stakeholder, poor timing, incomplete or inaccurate information, and misinterpretation) and 5 contextual factors (roles and boundaries, professionalism, team hierarchy, availability, and operational know-how) that influence how information exchange unfolds, making some consultations more prone to defects.Conclusions and relevanceSuccessful inpatient consultation requires a complicated, sequenced series of time-sensitive information exchanges that are highly vulnerable to failure. Maximizing the benefit of consultations will likely entail not only minimizing low-value consultations but also actively preventing defects, such as information inaccuracies and misinterpretation, that commonly derail the consultation process.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews.DesignSystematic review.Eligibility criteriaStudies that compared the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (eg, recommending a drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces (eg, editorials), or narrative reviews.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register (from inception to February 2020), reference lists, Web of Science, and grey literature.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using random effects models (relative risk >1 indicates that documents with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations than documents with no conflicts of interest). Financial and non-financial conflicts of interest were analysed separately, and the four types of documents were analysed separately (preplanned) and combined (post hoc).Results21 studies that analysed 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews were included. Unpublished data were received for 11 studies (eight full datasets and three summary datasets). 15 studies showed risk of confounding because the compared documents could differ in factors other than conflicts of interest (eg, different drugs used for different populations). The relative risk for associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations for clinical guidelines was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.69; four studies of 86 clinical guidelines), for advisory committee reports was 1.20 (0.99 to 1.45; four studies of 629 advisory committee reports), for opinion pieces was 2.62 (0.91 to 7.55; four studies of 284 opinion pieces), and for narrative reviews was 1.20 (0.97 to 1.49; four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis of all four types of documents combined supported these findings (1.26, 1.09 to 1.44). In one study that investigated specialty interests, the association between including radiologists as authors of guidelines and recommending routine breast cancer was: relative risk 2.10, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 4.77; 12 clinical guidelines).ConclusionsWe interpret our findings to indicate that financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations of drugs and devices in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. Limitations of this review were risk of confounding in the included studies and the statistical imprecision of individual analyses of each document type. It is not certain whether non-financial conflicts of interest influence recommendations.Systematic review registrationCochrane Methodology Review Protocol MR000040.

Project description:BackgroundAntidepressants (ADs) are commonly prescribed in primary care and are mostly indicated for depression. According to the literature, they are now more frequently prescribed for health conditions other than psychiatric ones. Due to their many indications in a wide range of medical fields, assessing the appropriateness of AD prescription seems to be a challenge for GPs. The aim of this study was to review evidence from guidelines for antidepressant prescription for non-psychiatric conditions in Primary Care (PC) settings.MethodsData were retrieved from French, English and US guideline databases. Guidelines or reviews were eligible if keywords regarding 44 non-psychiatric conditions related to GPs' prescription of ADs were encountered. After excluding psychiatric and non-primary care conditions, the guidelines were checked for keywords related to AD use. The latest updated version of the guidelines was kept. Recent data was searched in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and in PubMed for updated reviews and randomized control trials (RCTs).ResultsSeventy-eight documents were retrieved and were used to assess the level of evidence of a potential benefit to prescribing an AD. For 15 conditions, there was a consensus that prescribing an AD was beneficial. For 5 others, ADs were seen as potentially beneficial. No proof of benefit was found for 15 conditions and proof of no benefit was found for the last 9. There were higher levels of evidence for pain conditions, (neuropathic pain, diabetic painful neuropathy, central neuropathic pain, migraine, tension-type headaches, and fibromyalgia) incontinence and irritable bowel syndrome. There were difficulties in summarizing the data, due to a lack of information on the level of evidence, and due to variations in efficacy between and among the various classes of ADs.ConclusionsPrescription of ADs was found to be beneficial for many non-psychiatric health conditions regularly encountered in PC settings. On the whole, the guidelines were heterogeneous, seemingly due to a lack of trials assessing the role of ADs in treatment strategies.

Dataset Information

Internet videoconferencing for patient-clinician consultations in long-term conditions: A review of reviews and applications in line with guidelines and recommendations.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Internet videoconferencing for patient-clinician consultations in long-term conditions: A review of reviews and applications in line with guidelines and recommendations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets