Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Telehealth in Rural and Remote Emergency Departments: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Emergency telehealth has been used to improve access of patients residing in rural and remote areas to specialist care in the hope of mitigating the significant health disparities that they experience. Patient disposition decisions in rural and remote emergency departments (EDs) can be complex and largely dependent on the expertise and experience available at local (receiving-end) hospitals. Although there has been some synthesis of evidence of the effectiveness of emergency telehealth in clinical practice in rural and remote EDs for nonacute presentations, there has been limited evaluation of the influence of contextual factors such as clinical area and acuity of presentation on these findings.

Objective

The aims of this systematic review are to examine the outcome measures used in studying the effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote EDs and to analyze the clinical context in which these outcome measures were used and interpreted.

Methods

The search strategy used Medical Subject Headings and equivalent lists of subject descriptors to find articles covering 4 key domains: telehealth or telemedicine, EDs, effectiveness, and rural and remote. Studies were selected using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes of Interest, and Study Design framework. This search strategy was applied to MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, ProQuest, and EconLit, as well as the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases (eg, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database) for the search period from January 1, 1990, to May 23, 2020. Qualitative synthesis was performed on the outcome measures used in the included studies, in particular the clinical contexts within which they were interpreted.

Results

A total of 21 full-text articles were included for qualitative analysis. Telehealth use in rural and remote EDs demonstrated effectiveness in achieving improved or equivalent clinical effectiveness, appropriate care processes, and-depending on the context-improvement in speed of care, as well as favorable service use patterns. The definition of effectiveness varied across the clinical areas and contexts of the studies, and different measures have been used to affirm the safety and clinical effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote EDs. The acuity of patient presentation emerged as a dominant consideration in the interpretation of interlinking time-sensitive clinical effectiveness and patient disposition measures such as transfer and discharge rates, local hospital admission, length of stay, and ED length of stay. These, together with clinical area and acuity of presentation, are the outcome determination criteria that emerged from this review.

Conclusions

Emergency telehealth studies typically use multiple outcome measures to determine the effectiveness of the services. The outcome determination criteria that emerged from this analysis are useful when defining the favorable direction for each outcome measure of interest. The findings of this review have implications for emergency telehealth service design and policies.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42019145903; https://tinyurl.com/ndmkr8ry.

SUBMITTER: Tsou C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8665379 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmergency telehealth has been used to improve accessibility of rural and remote patients to specialist care. Evidence to date has demonstrated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote emergency departments within a variety of contexts. However, systematic reviews to date have not focused on the rural and remote emergency departments. The purpose of this study is to review the outcome measures used in evaluations of emergency telehealth in rural and remote settings and assess evidence relating to their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.MethodsRandomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and full and partial economic evaluations (e.g. cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-utility analyses) of telehealth in rural and remote emergency departments will be included. Comprehensive literature searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases (from 1990 onwards): MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, ProQuest, EconLit, CRD databases (e.g. NHS Economic Evaluation database), and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Two authors will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. The methodological quality (or risk of bias) of individual studies will be appraised using an appropriate tool. A systematic narrative synthesis will be provided with information presented in the text and tables to summarise and explain the characteristics and findings of the studies. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis.DiscussionThis review will identify gaps in the current body of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rural and remote emergency telehealth services. By confining to articles written in the English language, this analysis may be subjected to publication bias and results need to be interpreted accordingly. We believe the results of this review could be valuable for the design of future economic evaluations of emergency telehealth services implemented in the rural and remote context.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019145903.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth for emergency stroke care delivery (telestroke) has had widespread adoption, enabling many hospitals to obtain stroke center certification. Telehealth for pediatric emergency care has been less widely adopted.ObjectiveOur primary objective was to determine whether differences in policy or certification requirements contributed to differential uptake of telestroke versus pediatric telehealth. We hypothesized that differences in financial incentives, based on differences in patient volume, prehospital routing policy, and certification requirements, contributed to differential emergency department (ED) adoption of telestroke versus pediatric telehealth.MethodsWe used the 2016 National Emergency Department Inventory-USA to identify EDs that were using telestroke and pediatric telehealth services. We surveyed all EDs using pediatric telehealth services (n=339) and a convenience sample of the 1758 EDs with telestroke services (n=366). The surveys characterized ED staffing, transfer patterns, reasons for adoption, and frequency of use. We used bivariate comparisons to examine differences in reasons for adoption and use between EDs with only telestroke services, only pediatric telehealth services, or both.ResultsOf the 442 EDs surveyed, 378 (85.5%) indicated use of telestroke, pediatric telehealth, or both. EDs with both services were smaller in bed size, volume, and ED attending coverage than those with only telestroke services or only pediatric telehealth services. EDs with telestroke services reported more frequent use, overall, than EDs with pediatric telehealth services: 14.1% (45/320) of EDs with telestroke services reported weekly use versus 2.9% (8/272) of EDs with pediatric telehealth services (P<.001). In addition, 37 out of 272 (13.6%) EDs with pediatric telehealth services reported no consults in the past year. Across applications, the most frequently selected reason for adoption was "improving level of clinical care." Policy-related reasons (ie, for compliance with outside certification or standards or for improving ED performance on quality metrics) were rarely indicated as the most important, but these reasons were indicated slightly more often for telestroke adoption (12/320, 3.8%) than for pediatric telehealth adoption (1/272, 0.4%; P=.003).ConclusionsIn 2016, more US EDs had telestroke services than pediatric telehealth services; among EDs with the technology, consults were more frequently made for stroke than for pediatric patients. The most frequently indicated reason for adoption among all EDs was related to clinical care.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic discharge communication tools (EDCTs) are increasingly common in pediatric emergency departments (EDs). These tools have been shown to improve patient-centered communication, support postdischarge care at home, and reduce unnecessary return visits to the ED.ObjectiveThis study aimed to map and assess the evidence base for EDCTs used in pediatric EDs according to their functionalities, intended purpose, implementation context features, and outcomes.MethodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) procedures for identification, screening, and eligibility. A total of 7 databases (EBSCO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for studies published between 1989 and 2021. Studies evaluating discharge communication-related outcomes using electronic tools (eg, text messages, videos, and kiosks) in pediatric EDs were included. In all, 2 researchers independently assessed the eligibility. Extracted data related to study identification, methodology, settings and demographics, intervention features, outcome implementation features, and practice, policy, and research implications. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality. The synthesis of results involved structured tabulation, vote counting, recoding into common metrics, inductive thematic analysis, descriptive statistics, and heat mapping.ResultsIn total, 231 full-text articles and abstracts were screened for review inclusion with 49 reports (representing 55 unique tools) included. In all, 70% (26/37) of the studies met at least three of five Mixed Method Appraisal Tool criteria. The most common EDCTs were videos, text messages, kiosks, and phone calls. The time required to use the tools ranged from 120 seconds to 80 minutes. The EDCTs were evaluated for numerous presenting conditions (eg, asthma, fracture, head injury, fever, and otitis media) that required a range of at-home care needs after the ED visit. The most frequently measured outcomes were knowledge acquisition, caregiver and patient beliefs and attitudes, and health service use. Unvalidated self-report measures were typically used for measurement. Health care provider satisfaction or system-level impacts were infrequently measured in studies. The directionality of primary outcomes pointed to positive effects for the primary measure (44/55, 80%) or no significant difference (10/55, 18%). Only one study reported negative findings, with an increase in return visits to the ED after receiving the intervention compared with the control group.ConclusionsThis review is the first to map the broad literature of EDCTs used in pediatric EDs. The findings suggest a promising evidence base, demonstrating that EDCTs have been successfully integrated across clinical contexts and deployed via diverse technological modalities. Although caregiver and patient satisfaction with EDCTs is high, future research should use robust trials using consistent measures of communication quality, clinician experience, cost-effectiveness, and health service use to accumulate evidence regarding these outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020157500; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=157500.

Project description:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has presented emergency departments (EDs) with many challenges to address the acute care needs of patients. Many EDs have leveraged telehealth to innovatively respond to these challenges. This review describes the landscape of telehealth initiatives in emergency care that have been described during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive, systematic review of the literature using PubMed, supplemented by a review of the gray literature (ie, non-peer reviewed), with input from subject matter experts to identify telehealth initiatives in emergency care during coronavirus disease 2019. We categorized types of telehealth use based on purpose and user characteristics.ResultsWe included 27 papers from our review of the medical literature and another 8 sources from gray literature review. The vast majority of studies (32/35) were descriptive in nature, with the additional inclusion of 2 cohort studies and one randomized clinical trial. There were 5 categories of ED telehealth use during the pandemic: (1) pre-ED evaluation and screening, (2) within ED (including as a means of limiting staff and patient exposure and facilitating consultation with specialists), (3) post-ED discharge monitoring and treatment, (4) educating trainees and health care workers, and (5) coordinating resources and patient care.ConclusionTelehealth has been used in a variety of manners during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, enabling innovation in emergency care delivery. The findings from this study can be used by institutions to consider how telehealth may address challenges in emergency care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and beyond. Because few studies included cost data and given the variability in institutional resources, how organizations implement telehealth programs will likely vary. Future work should further explore barriers and facilitators of innovation, and the impact on care delivery and patient outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People with severe mental illness (SMI) must receive early interventions to prevent mental health deterioration or relapse. Telecommunications and other technologies are increasingly being used to assist in health care delivery using "telehealth," which includes telephones and mobile phones, computers, remote sensors, the internet, and other devices, to provide immediate real-time information to service users to improve the management of chronic health conditions. Some initial findings have suggested that technology could improve the quality of life of people with SMI. OBJECTIVE:In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the various uses and efficacy of telehealth technology for SMI. METHODS:We systematically searched electronic databases from inception to March 2016 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Health Technology Assessment, CINAHL Plus, and NHS Economic Evaluations Database) to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating telehealth for adults with SMI published in English. Additional literature was identified through searching reference lists of key articles. The articles meeting the inclusion criteria were systematically reviewed and assessed for quality and risk of bias. RESULTS:Our search identified 31 articles describing 29 trials as eligible for the review. The included studies evaluated the use of computers to deliver cognitive rehabilitation (15 trials), patient education (3 trials), and Web-based self-management interventions (2 trials) and to support consultations (1 trial). Virtual reality was used to simulate work and social situations (2 trials) and to deliver cognitive training (1 trial). Telephones were used to prompt service users to take medications (3 trials) and to report symptoms to their health care team (1 trial). Remote sensors were used to monitor medication use (1 trial). Telephone support was found effective in improving medication adherence and reducing the severity of symptoms and inpatient days. Computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation was effective in improving cognitive function. The impact of telehealth on other outcomes was inconsistent. The results of this review should be taken in the context of varied quality in study design, with only 5 studies demonstrating a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS:A growing variety of telehealth technologies are being used to support the management of SMI. Specific technology types have been found to be effective for some outcomes (eg, telephone and remote medication monitoring for adherence to treatment), while other types of telehealth technologies (eg, delivery of patient education using computers) had no benefit over traditional nurse-based methods and were less acceptable to patients. Further research is warranted to establish the full potential benefits of telehealth for improving the quality of life in people with SMI, acceptability from the service user perspective, and cost-effectiveness. The findings of this review are limited by the poor quality of many of the studies reviewed.