Telehealth Use and Legal Considerations in Drug Health Services During Pandemics: Systematic Scoping Review.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted patients with substance use disorder (SUD) more than the general population and resulted in substantially increased emergency department admissions. Routine care of patients attending drug health services during the pandemic transitioned, with telehealth being important in delivering appropriate care. However, telehealth introduces unique risks such as privacy, confidentiality, and data safety. Providing health care through telehealth may fail if the legal impacts are not fully identified and acted on by health professionals. It also poses unintended risks for patients and can result in ineffectiveness, damages, medical negligence, and detracts from the best intentions of governments and health professionals. Understanding the legal framework ensures that medical professionals operate health care through telehealth within the law. Providing health care successfully through telehealth depends on the balance between innovation and legal compliance. By considering these aspects, clinicians and practitioners can provide effective and safe telehealth services during pandemics or any other natural disaster.

Objective: We aimed to explore the legal impact of autonomy consent, confidentiality, privacy, data security, professional indemnity, and liability when delivering telehealth to patients with SUD. The scoping review also aimed to provide legal, ethical, and clinical considerations to minimize legal risks with using telehealth in drug health service outpatient settings.

Methods: We performed a scoping review to provide an overview of existing research, statutes, and case laws for the incorporation of clinical, ethical, and legal considerations into telehealth use. Six databases for medical and 6 databases for legal publications were searched, as well as Australian national and selected international regulatory standards. Medical articles published up to June 2022 were included in this review. Our search yielded 1436 publications, 614 abstracts were reviewed, and 80 published studies met the inclusion criteria from 614 legal and medical search results. Current regulations related to technology use in drug health services, relevant cases, and international regulatory standards are discussed.

Results: In total, 43 legal documents including 15 statutes, 4 case laws, and 37 medical publications were reviewed. The themes arising from the literature were consent and autonomy (20/80, 25%), confidentiality (8/80, 10%), privacy (8/80, 10%), data security (7/80, 9%), and professional indemnity issues (3/80, 4%) in telehealth use. Further, 24 studies identified legal issues associated with telehealth use in patients with SUD.

Conclusions: Our review identified potential legal issues associated with telehealth use in patients with SUD. Several legal and medical research articles provide frameworks, codes of conduct, or suggestions for clinicians to consider, but there was little discussion or evidence of how legal considerations are being applied when providing telehealth consultations at drug health services. Clinicians should be aware of the medicolegal implications when providing health care via telehealth at drug health services.