Search

While telemedicine programme objectives, technologies and even philosophies will differ, certain common factors that enhance programme success can be identified. For example, a programme design which is driven by technological imperatives is likely to fail. It must also be recognized that telemedicine programmes cannot force remote sites to use their services. Thus developers must assess the needs for the proposed telemedicine service from a clinical, economic and technical perspective. From a clinical perspective, it is important to remember that certain clinical services can be provided via telemedicine while others cannot. Programme developers must recognize the significant role of the remote team in sustaining services; the on-site presenter is essential for the successful practice of telemedicine. Evaluating a telemedicine programme should be viewed as an integral step in its design and implementation. One site may define effectiveness in terms of access to services while another may measure success by cost savings. The success of future telemedicine programmes will be strongly related to their ability to recognize that they should be used to enhance current health-care delivery rather than to replace it.

Twenty counties in Kansas were randomly selected from those designated as rural on the basis of their populations. A sample of 356 physicians and physicians' assistants in these counties was chosen. A postal survey was sent to the identified providers up to three times. One hundred and eighty-six of the questionnaires were returned (a response rate of 52%). In all, 76% of the respondents were physicians, 76% were men and 42% were family practitioners. Practitioners were classified as adopters or non-adopters of telemedicine, based on their report of whether they had ever referred one or more patients for a health-care consultation via telemedicine. Of the 167 participants who marked this item, 30 (18%) were adopters and 137 (82%) were non-adopters. Among the adopters, 16 (53%) said that they expected to use telemedicine with about the same frequency or more often in the future. In contrast, 61 (45%) non-adopters reported that they did not expect to refer patients by telemedicine in the future and 51 (37%) were unsure. Neither age (r = 0.16, P = 0.44) nor gender (chi2 = 2.35, P = 0.13) was related to the adoption variable or the number of referrals made to telemedicine clinics. The results suggest that adopters and non-adopters of telemedicine perceive its value very differently, and that an opportunity exists to promote the concept to non-adopters more effectively.

Oncology services have been provided by telemedicine from the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) for almost 10 years. We have analysed the costs associated with providing tele-oncology clinics to a rural Kansas town for two fiscal years, 1995 and 2000. The aim was to compare recent tele-oncology costs with those of the first year of tele-oncology practice. A study conducted in 1995 showed that the average cost was $812 per telemedicine consultation. Data from fiscal year 2000 showed that the average cost was $410 per telemedicine consultation, a decrease of almost 50%. As the tele-oncology practice in Kansas continues to grow, it can be expected that the costs associated with providing tele-oncology services will continue to decline.

Since 1998, over 1300 telemedicine consultations have been provided to 12 schools in Kansas City. Despite the success of the programme, effective utilization of services has not occurred at all sites. We used a focus group and survey methods to investigate barriers to and catalysts for service adoption. The results showed that the school nurses strongly supported the programme. They valued its ability to provide health-care for the children and they welcomed their enhanced role. However, technical complexities and difficulties in obtaining parental consent were found to impede adoption. The nurses also expressed frustration with school personnel who had a poor understanding of their role in general as well as that of the telemedicine service. A new state reimbursement policy may promote greater understanding and provide a financial incentive for schools to adopt the telemedicine service.

Two large hospice organizations in Kansas and Michigan began a telehospice project with the goal of improving care at the end of life using telemedicine. Hospice nurses provided services using video directly to the homes of hospice patients. The telemedicine equipment operated over ordinary telephone lines. Nursing services included symptom assessment and psychospiritual evaluations. Patients lived in both urban and rural settings. Studies were designed to evaluate utilization patterns, access to care, patient/carer acceptance, medical outcomes and cost. During the first year of the project, telehospice care was initiated at five rural sites (two in Michigan and three in Kansas) and three urban sites (two in Michigan and one in Kansas). There was greater telehospice activity in Michigan than in Kansas, with 118 and 44 patients served, respectively. The urban site in Kansas withdrew from the study after participating for only nine months. In an effort to understand the difference in utilization patterns and reasons for withdrawing from the project, in-depth interviews of key study participants, including hospice administrators, nurses and research personnel, were conducted. Human factors appear to be important in the adoption of novel telemedicine applications.

Based on our experience of telemedicine in Kansas, we have identified several key factors in the success of a telemedicine practice. Very early in any project, it is important to bring together all participants (especially the physicians who are expected to refer patients) to define the need, outline specific goals, analyse and test the technology, and develop a plan for the implementation. As with traditional health-care, many partners must come together, including primary-care practitioners willing to shoulder day-to-day responsibility for management of complex patients, nurses with special expertise and consultants willing to work with a remote team using telemedicine. These individuals must accept the challenges and appreciate the rewards of working in a different practice model, in which communication and interdependence are critical for success. The telemedicine consultant is only as good as the local health-care team. The technology itself is only a small part of the equation.

A telehospice service is one in which telemedicine is used to provide hospice care in the home. To date, there have been few studies addressing the cost of home-based telemedical care, and none that specifically addresses cost-effectiveness for telehospice recipients. We measured costs for traditional hospice care as well as those associated with launching and operating a telehospice service. The costs were tallied over two separate three-month periods. For the first study period, costs were measured for traditional hospice home visits. During the second, expenses were monitored for traditional (in-person) and telehospice visits. For traditional care, the cost per visit was $126 and $141, for the first and secod time periods, respectively. The average telehospice visit cost was $29.

We studied patients' perceptions of telemedicine (interactive video) as a means of delivering specialist oncology/haematology care. Semistructured telephone interviews were performed with 22 patients attending a tele-oncology/haematology clinic in Kansas. Interviews were audio-taped and thematic content analysis of the transcripts was done. The response rate was 96%. All participants expressed satisfaction with their tele-consultations. For 50% of respondents, satisfaction with the tele-oncology/haematology clinic was qualified by two factors: participants also saw the specialist in person on occasions and the clinic was perceived as providing mainly a 'monitoring' function. In addition, 9 of the 22 patients expressed concern about the role of the nurse as a proxy for the doctor in performing certain parts of the physical examination. Overall, participants valued improved access to specialist services but had clear views as to the limitations of such a service. As the use of telecommunications technology grows, patient perspectives merit greater attention.

To determine what percentage of traditional home health nursing visits could be done by telemedicine, we carried out a retrospective review of nursing charts (clinical records). Data of two types were recorded. The objective data, which were abstracted from the records, included demographic information, patient assessments, teaching activities and interventions. The subjective data were the opinions of four observers as to whether the visit could have been done using currently available telemedicine technology. Records were sampled randomly for patients who had received home nursing care from three home health agencies in rural and urban areas during the winter and summer of 1996. A 54-item coding instrument was applied to 906 different charted home nursing visits. For 412 (46%) of these, the on-site nursing could reasonably have been replaced by telenursing. Significant factors determining the possible use of telenursing included primary diagnosis, number of interventions and patient age. Among the 10 most common primary diagnoses, the most amenable to telenursing care were chronic airway obstruction and joint disorders; the least amenable were coagulation disorders and anaemia. Telenursing visits could substitute for a substantial fraction of on-site home nursing visits. This has important implications in terms of reducing the cost of home nursing care.

A pilot study of telenursing for terminally ill patients at home was launched as a collaborative effort between KUMC and the Kendallwood Hospice. The service used the public telephone network. Interactive video equipment was installed in the homes of three nurses who received after-hours calls and in the homes of six hospice patients living in either Kansas or Missouri. Data concerning the utilization patterns were gathered for two separate three-month periods. Patients and caregivers reported general satisfaction with the telehospice system. Both the nurses and social worker providers became comfortable about video-calls. Nurses conducted video-assessments to determine whether an 'in person' visit was necessary. This was particularly helpful for rural patients who were living a long way from the base station. In addition, Kendallwood serves an urban population and, in certain areas, night-time nursing visits raise safety concerns.

The costs of providing oncology services in three different ways were measured. Services were provided to a peripheral hospital by: conventional clinics, in which the oncologist worked at the hospital concerned; outreach clinics, in which an oncologist was flown in periodically from a central hospital; telemedicine clinics, in which the oncologist at the central hospital practised via a video-link. During a one-year study period, 2400 patients were seen in conventional clinics, 81 in outreach clinics and 103 in telemedicine clinics. At these workloads the average costs per patient were $149, $897 and $812, respectively. However, the average costs cannot be compared directly without further information about the shape of the unit cost curves.

Although there are increasing numbers of telemedicine programmes in the USA, few have offered teleoncology services, so that the role of telemedicine in the practice of clinical oncology has yet to be fully defined. Telemedicine has been used successfully for direct patient care in Kansas. It is also a method of providing supportive care for the cancer patient, including assessments of pain and nutrition. In addition, televised tumour conferences and nursing education courses can help smaller communities develop a level of expertise that allows patients to be treated locally. Telemedicine may well be used in future for access to national and international cancer experts, and for participation in new cancer treatment protocols through cooperative group trials. When practising oncology via telemedicine, there are unique problems, including issues regarding technology (interactive video and radiograph review) and practice (patient/oncologist preferences and doctor-patient communication). Very little has been published in the area of tele-oncology so far, and studies concerning its efficacy, cost-effectiveness and the best organizational structure are still in progress. However, telemedicine appears to be a useful technique in the practice of oncology.

Costs were monitored for three different types of oncology practice: a telemedicine clinic and a fly-in outreach clinic, both held in rural areas, and a traditional clinic held in a city hospital. Total expenses were calculated over the year May 1995 to April 1996. The average cost per telemedicine visit was $812. The average cost per outreach clinic visit was $897. Flying in oncology support for this practice was therefore about 10% more costly than telemedicine. While the outreach cost may have been inappropriately high due to a slow start-up phase, it was still less expensive during this period to be seen via telemedicine. For comparison, the average cost per traditional oncology clinic visit was $149. However, this figure does not take into account the costs of access to a city-based service by rural patients.