The current coronavirus pandemic is again reminding us of the importance of using telehealth to deliver care, especially as means of reducing the risk of cross-contamination caused by close contact. For telehealth to be effective as part of an emergency response it first needs to become a routinely used part of our health system. Hence, it is time to step back and ask why telehealth is not mainstreamed. In this article, we highlight key requirements for this to occur. Strategies to ensure that telehealth is used regularly in acute, post-acute and emergency situations, alongside conventional service delivery methods, include flexible funding arrangements, training and accrediting our health workforce. Telehealth uptake also requires a significant change in management effort and the redesign of existing models of care. Implementing telehealth proactively rather than reactively is more likely to generate greater benefits in the longterm, and help with the everyday (and emergency) challenges in healthcare.

The current coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has resulted in tremendous growth in telehealth services in Australia and around the world. The rapid uptake of telehealth has mainly been due to necessity – following social distancing requirements and the need to reduce the risk of transmission. Although telehealth has been available for many decades, the COVID-19 experience has resulted in heightened awareness of telehealth amongst health service providers, patients and society overall. With increased telehealth uptake in many jurisdictions during the pandemic, it is timely and important to consider what role telehealth will have post-pandemic. In this article, we highlight five key requirements for the long-term sustainability of telehealth. These include: (a) developing a skilled workforce; (b) empowering consumers; (c) reforming funding; (d) improving the digital ecosystems; and (e) integrating telehealth into routine care.

In March 2020, the Australian Government added new temporary telehealth services to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) to reduce the risk of patient–patient and patient–clinician transmission of the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19). Here, the MBS statistics for general practitioner activity and the associated costs are described; a small increase in both activity and costs for the new MBS telehealth items were observed. The opportunities for future research and policy implications are also discussed.

Introduction To promote telehealth implementation and uptake, it is important to assess overall clinical effectiveness to ensure any changes will not adversely affect patient outcomes. The last systematic literature review examining telehealth effectiveness was conducted in 2010. Given the increasing use of telehealth and technological developments in the field, a more contemporary review has been carried out. The aim of this review was to synthesise recent evidence associated with the clinical effectiveness of telehealth services. Methods A systematic search of ‘Pretty Darn Quick’-Evidence portal was carried out in November 2020 for systematic reviews on telehealth, where the primary outcome measure reported was clinical effectiveness. Due to the volume of telehealth articles, only systematic reviews with meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2019 were included in the analysis. Results We found 38 meta-analyses, covering 10 medical disciplines: cardiovascular disease ( n = 3), dermatology ( n = 1), endocrinology ( n = 13), neurology ( n = 4), nephrology ( n = 2), obstetrics ( n = 1), ophthalmology ( n = 1), psychiatry and psychology ( n = 7), pulmonary ( n = 4) and multidisciplinary care ( n = 2). The evidence showed that for all disciplines, telehealth across a range of modalities was as effective, if not more, than usual care. Discussion This review demonstrates that telehealth can be equivalent or more clinically effective when compared to usual care. However, the available evidence is very discipline specific, which highlights the need for more clinical effectiveness studies involving telehealth across a wider spectrum of clinical health services. The findings from this review support the view that in the right context, telehealth will not compromise the effectiveness of clinical care when compared with conventional forms of health service delivery.

BackgroundPrimary care providers have been rapidly transitioning from in-person to telehealth care during the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. There is an opportunity for new research in a rapidly evolving area, where evidence for telehealth services in primary care in the Australian setting remains limited.AimTo explore general practitioner (GP) perceptions on providing telehealth (telephone and videoconsultation) services in primary care in Australia.Design & settingA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to gain an understanding of GP perceptions on telehealth use in Australia.MethodsGPs across Australia were purposively sampled. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim for analysis. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis to identify initial codes, which were then organised into themes.ResultsFourteen GPs were interviewed. Two major themes that described GP perceptions of telehealth were 1) Existence of business and financial pressures in general practice and 2) providing quality of care in Australia. These two themes interacted with four minor themes: 3) consumer-led care, 4) COVID-19 as a driver for telehealth reimbursement and adoption, 5) refining logistical processes and 6) GP experiences shape telehealth use.ConclusionThis study found that multiple considerations influence GP choice of in-person, videoconference, or telephone consultation mode. For telehealth to be used routinely within primary care settings, evidence that supports the delivery of higher quality care to patients through telehealth and sustainable funding models will be required.

Telediabetes may improve patient access to clinicians who specialize in the management of pediatric diabetes. Due to the diversity of telehealth modes, many different service models for pediatric telediabetes have been developed. This review describes pediatric telediabetes service models identified in the literature, investigates the reported changes in HbA1c of these interventions, and describes enablers and barriers to implementing a telediabetes service. Evaluation of current literature may inform the development and sustainability of telehealth services for pediatric diabetes management. Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. This review has demonstrated that pediatric telediabetes can be delivered by remote monitoring and real-time videoconference modes. Overall, pediatric telediabetes increased interactions between patients and clinicians, improved access to specialized care, and facilitated increased diabetes monitoring. In some contexts, telediabetes also improved short-term glycemic control. Key enablers reported for telediabetes services were integration with existing workflows, dedicated staff, clinician and patient training, appropriate data security, technology with good usability, and the availability of technical support. Barriers included increases in patient responsibilities and clinician workload, and technical issues with equipment and software.

ObjectivesOur recent systematic review determined that remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions can reduce acute care use. However, effectiveness varied within and between populations. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers require more than evidence of effect; they need guidance on how best to design and implement RPM interventions. Therefore, this study aimed to explore these results further to (1) identify factors of RPM interventions that relate to increased and decreased acute care use and (2) develop recommendations for future RPM interventions.DesignRealist review—a qualitative systematic review method which aims to identify and explain why intervention results vary in different situations. We analysed secondarily 91 studies included in our previous systematic review that reported on RPM interventions and the impact on acute care use. Online databases PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched in October 2020. Included studies were published in English during 2015–2020 and used RPM to monitor an individual’s biometric data (eg, heart rate, blood pressure) from a distance.Primary and secondary outcome measuresContextual factors and potential mechanisms that led to variation in acute care use (hospitalisations, length of stay or emergency department presentations).ResultsAcross a range of RPM interventions 31 factors emerged that impact the effectiveness of RPM innovations on acute care use. These were synthesised into six theories of intervention success: (1) targeting populations at high risk; (2) accurately detecting a decline in health; (3) providing responsive and timely care; (4) personalising care; (5) enhancing self-management, and (6) ensuring collaborative and coordinated care.ConclusionWhile RPM interventions are complex, if they are designed with patients, providers and the implementation setting in mind and incorporate the key variables identified within this review, it is more likely that they will be effective at reducing acute hospital events.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020142523.

Introduction The delivery of specialist health services to people living in Indigenous communities is an important challenge. Specialist diabetes outpatient clinics may be delivered via a patient travelling to a metropolitan hospital, during an outreach clinic, or by telehealth. The aim of this study was to compare the costs and consequences of different service models for delivering specialist diabetes clinics for a remote Indigenous community. Method Patient travel, outreach and telehealth clinic models were compared using a cost-consequence analysis principles. The setting was Cunnamulla, a remote Indigenous community in Western Queensland. Costs were calculated by quantifying the staff resources and travel costs for each clinic model. Costs were reported in Australian dollars and reported from the health service perspective. Results The marginal cost per patient for each clinic were $692 for patient travel, $482 for the outreach and $284 for telehealth. If a patient travel appointment was replaced with telehealth, approximately $517 in costs for patient travel reimbursement would be avoided. While replacing an entire outreach clinic with a telehealth clinic would reduce costs by approximately $3961. Conclusion The marginal cost of patient travel to a metropolitan clinic and outreach clinic appointments was greater than telehealth. Telehealth is unlikely to completely replace the need for patient travel or outreach clinics. However, replacing a proportion of these appointments with telehealth may reduce the overall costs of providing specialist diabetes care in remote communities. Telehealth may have advantages beyond economic as it reduces the time away from usual activities for both the patient and endocrinologist.