Clinician perspectives on rapid transition to telehealth during COVID-19 in Australia - a qualitative study.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Australian Health Review Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1071/AH22037
Lillian Smyth, Suzannah Roushdy, Jerusha Jeyasingham, Joshua Whitbread, Peta O'Brien, Charles Lloyd, Christian J Lueck, Carolyn A Hawkins, Graham Reynolds, Diana Perriman
{"title":"Clinician perspectives on rapid transition to telehealth during COVID-19 in Australia - a qualitative study.","authors":"Lillian Smyth,&nbsp;Suzannah Roushdy,&nbsp;Jerusha Jeyasingham,&nbsp;Joshua Whitbread,&nbsp;Peta O'Brien,&nbsp;Charles Lloyd,&nbsp;Christian J Lueck,&nbsp;Carolyn A Hawkins,&nbsp;Graham Reynolds,&nbsp;Diana Perriman","doi":"10.1071/AH22037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic precipitated a major shift in the use of telehealth in Australia. The changes highlighted gaps in our knowledge regarding the efficacy of, and clinician attitudes to, the use of telehealth. The current study expands and deepens the available evidence as a result of being collected in unique circumstances that removed one of the major barriers (lack of Medicare rebates) and also one major enablers (willingness) of telehealth uptake. Methods Using a semi-structured interview, we invited clinicians (N  = 39) to share their perspectives, attitudes and experiences of using telehealth. Topics covered included perceptions of the strengths and challenges of telehealth, and how experience of using telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic had influenced clinicians' views and intentions regarding their future practice. Participants included clinicians from five disciplines across public and private practice: paediatrics, neurology, immunology, rural general practice, and orthopaedics. Results We found three key dimensions for consideration when assessing the suitability of telehealth for ongoing practice: the attributes of the patient population, the attributes of the clinical context and environment, and the risks and benefits of a telehealth approach. These findings map to the existing literature and allow us to infer that the experiences of clinicians who previously would have chosen telehealth did not differ significantly from those of our 'pandemic-conscripted' clinicians. Conclusions Our findings map clearly to the existing literature and allow us to infer that the experiences of the clinicians who have chosen telehealth (and are already represented in the literature) did not differ significantly from those trying out telehealth under the unique circumstances of the removal of the Medicare Benefits Scheme barrier and external pressure that over-rides the 'willingness' enabling factor in uptake decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55425,"journal":{"name":"Australian Health Review","volume":"47 1","pages":"92-99"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Health Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH22037","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic precipitated a major shift in the use of telehealth in Australia. The changes highlighted gaps in our knowledge regarding the efficacy of, and clinician attitudes to, the use of telehealth. The current study expands and deepens the available evidence as a result of being collected in unique circumstances that removed one of the major barriers (lack of Medicare rebates) and also one major enablers (willingness) of telehealth uptake. Methods Using a semi-structured interview, we invited clinicians (N  = 39) to share their perspectives, attitudes and experiences of using telehealth. Topics covered included perceptions of the strengths and challenges of telehealth, and how experience of using telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic had influenced clinicians' views and intentions regarding their future practice. Participants included clinicians from five disciplines across public and private practice: paediatrics, neurology, immunology, rural general practice, and orthopaedics. Results We found three key dimensions for consideration when assessing the suitability of telehealth for ongoing practice: the attributes of the patient population, the attributes of the clinical context and environment, and the risks and benefits of a telehealth approach. These findings map to the existing literature and allow us to infer that the experiences of clinicians who previously would have chosen telehealth did not differ significantly from those of our 'pandemic-conscripted' clinicians. Conclusions Our findings map clearly to the existing literature and allow us to infer that the experiences of the clinicians who have chosen telehealth (and are already represented in the literature) did not differ significantly from those trying out telehealth under the unique circumstances of the removal of the Medicare Benefits Scheme barrier and external pressure that over-rides the 'willingness' enabling factor in uptake decisions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床医生对澳大利亚COVID-19期间快速过渡到远程医疗的看法——一项定性研究。
2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行促成了澳大利亚远程医疗使用的重大转变。这些变化突出了我们对远程保健的有效性和临床医生对使用远程保健的态度的认识差距。目前的研究扩大和深化了现有的证据,因为它是在独特的情况下收集的,消除了一个主要障碍(缺乏医疗保险回扣),也是一个主要的推动因素(意愿)远程医疗的吸收。方法采用半结构化访谈法,我们邀请临床医生(N = 39)分享他们使用远程医疗的观点、态度和经验。涉及的主题包括对远程医疗的优势和挑战的看法,以及在COVID-19大流行期间使用远程医疗的经验如何影响临床医生对其未来实践的看法和意图。参与者包括来自公共和私人执业的五个学科的临床医生:儿科、神经病学、免疫学、农村全科和骨科。结果:在评估远程医疗的适用性时,我们发现了三个需要考虑的关键维度:患者群体的属性,临床背景和环境的属性,以及远程医疗方法的风险和收益。这些发现与现有文献相吻合,并使我们能够推断,以前选择远程医疗的临床医生的经验与我们“被流行病征召”的临床医生的经验没有显著差异。我们的研究结果清楚地映射到现有文献,并允许我们推断,选择远程医疗的临床医生的经验(并且已经在文献中有所体现)与那些在医疗保险福利计划障碍和外部压力消除的独特情况下尝试远程医疗的人没有显着差异,这些压力超越了“意愿”使能决策的因素。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Health Review
Australian Health Review 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
134
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Health Review is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes contributions on all aspects of health policy, management and governance; healthcare delivery systems; workforce; health financing; and other matters of interest to those working in health care. In addition to analyses and commentary, the journal publishes original research from practitioners – managers and clinicians – and reports of breakthrough projects that demonstrate better ways of delivering care. Australian Health Review explores major national and international health issues and questions, enabling health professionals to keep their fingers on the pulse of the nation’s health decisions and to know what the most influential commentators and decision makers are thinking. Australian Health Review is a valuable resource for managers, policy makers and clinical staff in health organisations, including government departments, hospitals, community centres and aged-care facilities, as well as anyone with an interest in the health industry. Australian Health Review is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association.
期刊最新文献
Implementation of physiotherapy-led lung ultrasound in the intensive care unit. Clinical governance implications of a Victorian coronial finding regarding contrast-related anaphylaxis for health services and private providers of radiology services. Implementation of an in-reach rehabilitation program can increase the rate of discharge home from acute hospital care. Establishment of the first Australian public and health-professional palliative care advice service: exploring caller needs and gaps in care. Evaluating an implementation of the Australian National Guidelines for the On-Screen Display of Discharge Summaries.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1