BackgroundTelehealth is the delivery of health care at a distance, using information and communication technology. The major rationales for its introduction have been to decrease costs, improve efficiency and increase access in health care delivery. This systematic review assesses the economic value of one type of telehealth delivery - synchronous or real time video communication - rather than examining a heterogeneous range of delivery modes as has been the case with previous reviews in this area.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken for economic analyses of the clinical use of telehealth, ending in June 2009. Studies with patient outcome data and a non-telehealth comparator were included. Cost analyses, non-comparative studies and those where patient satisfaction was the only health outcome were excluded.Results36 articles met the inclusion criteria. 22(61%) of the studies found telehealth to be less costly than the non-telehealth alternative, 11(31%) found greater costs and 3 (9%) gave the same or mixed results. 23 of the studies took the perspective of the health services, 12 were societal, and one was from the patient perspective. In three studies of telehealth to rural areas, the health services paid more for telehealth, but due to savings in patient travel, the societal perspective demonstrated cost savings. In regard to health outcomes, 12 (33%) of studies found improved health outcomes, 21 (58%) found outcomes were not significantly different, 2(6%) found that telehealth was less effective, and 1 (3%) found outcomes differed according to patient group. The organisational model of care was more important in determining the value of the service than the clinical discipline, the type of technology, or the date of the study.ConclusionDelivery of health services by real time video communication was cost-effective for home care and access to on-call hospital specialists, showed mixed results for rural service delivery, and was not cost-effective for local delivery of services between hospitals and primary care.

Telehealth, the delivery of health care services at a distance using information and communications technology, has been slow to be adopted and difficult to sustain. Researchers developing theories concerning the introduction of complex change into health care usually take a multifactorial approach; we intentionally sought a single point of intervention that would have maximum impact on implementation. We conducted a qualitative interview study of 36 Australian telehealth services, sampled for maximum variation, and used grounded theory methods to develop a model from which we chose the most important factor affecting the success of telehealth. We propose that clinician acceptance explains much of the variation in the uptake, expansion, and sustainability of Australian telehealth services, and that clinician acceptance could, in most circumstances, overcome low demand, technology problems, workforce pressure, and lack of resourcing. We conclude that our model offers practical advice to those seeking to implement change with limited resources.

Background The use of direct observation to monitor tuberculosis treatment is controversial: cost, practical difficulties, and lack of patient acceptability limit effectiveness. Telehealth is a promising alternative delivery method for improving implementation. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a telehealth service delivering direct observation, compared to an in-person drive-around service.Methodology/Principal Findings The study was conducted within a community nursing service in South Australia. Telehealth patients received daily video calls at home on a desktop videophone provided by the nursing call center. A retrospective cohort study assessed the effectiveness of the telehealth and traditional forms of observation, defined by the proportion of missed observations recorded in case notes. This data was inputted to a model, estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of telehealth. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with current patients, community nursing and Chest Clinic staff, concerning service acceptability, usability and sustainability. The percentage of missed observations for the telehealth service was 12.1 (n = 58), compared to 31.1 for the in-person service (n = 70). Most of the difference of 18.9% (95% CI: 12.2 – 25.4) was due to fewer pre-arranged absences. The economic analysis calculated the ICER to be AUD$1.32 (95% CI: $0.51 – $2.26) per extra day of successful observation. The video service used less staff time, and became dominant if implemented on a larger scale and/or with decreased technology costs. Qualitative analysis found enabling factors of flexible timing, high patient acceptance, staff efficiency, and Chest Clinic support. Substantial technical problems were manageable, and improved liaison between the nursing service and Chest Clinic was an unexpected side-benefit.Conclusions/Significance Home video observation is a patient-centered, resource efficient way of delivering direct observation for TB, and is cost-effective when compared with a drive-around service. Future research is recommended to determine applicability and effectiveness in other settings.

We conducted a cost benefit analysis of a home telehealth-based cardiac rehabilitation programme compared to the standard hospital-based programme. A total of 120 participants were enrolled in a trial, with 60 randomised to the telehealth group and 60 randomised to usual care. Participants in the telehealth group received a mobile phone, Wellness Diary and a Wellness web portal, with daily text messaging. Participants in the usual care group received the standard 6-week hospital-based outpatient cardiac rehabilitation programme, including gym sessions. The cost of delivery by telehealth was slightly lower than for patients attending a rehabilitation service in person. From the provider's perspective, the telehealth intervention could be delivered for $1633 per patient, compared to $1845 for the usual care group. From the participant's perspective, patient travel costs for home rehabilitation were substantially less than for hospital attendance ($80 vs $400). Cardiac rehabilitation by telehealth offers obvious advantages and the option should be available to all patients who are eligible for cardiac rehabilitation.

Information and communications technology has become central to the way in which health services are provided. Technology-enabled services in healthcare are often described as eHealth, or more recently, digital health. Practitioners may require new knowledge, skills and competencies to make best use of eHealth, and while universities may be a logical place to provide such education and training, a study in 2012 found that the workforce was not being adequately educated to achieve competence to work with eHealth. We revisited eHealth education and training in Australian universities with a focus on medical schools; we aimed to explore the progress of eHealth in the Australian medical curriculum. We conducted a national interview study and interpretative phenomenological analysis with participants from all 19 medical schools in Australia; two themes emerged: (i) consensus on the importance of eHealth to current and future clinical practice; (ii) there are other priorities, and no strong drivers for change. Systemic problems inhibit the inclusion of eHealth in medical education: the curriculum is described as ‘crowded’ and with competing demands, and because accrediting bodies do not expect eHealth competence in medical graduates, there is no external pressure for its inclusion. Unless and until accrediting bodies recognise and expect competence in eHealth, it is unlikely that it will enter the curriculum; consequently the future workforce will remain unprepared.

Medicare rebates and incentives, which are generous by world standards, have resulted in specialist video consultations being provided to underserved areas, although gaps still remain that need new models of care to be developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?: Video consultations have been rebated by Medicare since July 2011 as a means of increasing access to specialist care in rural areas, aged care facilities and Aboriginal health services. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD?: The uptake of this telehealth initiative has grown over time, but still remains low. For half the video consultations the patient was supported by an on-site healthcare provider, most commonly a general practitioner. Geriatrics and psychiatry are the specialties with the highest proportional uptake. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS?: New models of care with a greater focus on consultation-liaison with primary care providers need to be developed to realise the potential of this initiative and to fill continuing gaps in services.

Telehealth 'champions' are enthusiastic individuals who initiate and promote the uptake of telehealth services. Their role and impact was investigated as part of a qualitative study into the uptake and sustainability of telehealth services in Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 individuals who had been involved in the establishment and operations of 37 diverse telehealth services throughout Australia. A grounded theory analysis was carried out. The results indicated that most services were initiated by champions (25 of the 37). The champions appeared to have three main roles: enthusiastic promotion of telehealth, acting as legitimators, and relationship building. Champions were capable of keeping small scale services operating, but the services were vulnerable to cessation when they lost interest or moved on. As long as participation in telehealth remains optional, the role of the champion will be an important factor in continued operations.

Background