Considerations on the Implementation of the Telemedicine System Encountered with Stakeholders' Resistance in COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Background: Non-face-to-face consultation, which ensures physical distance between patients and doctors, is increasing as a substitute mode for dealing with highly infectious diseases. Korea, with its remarkable Information and Communications Technology infrastructure, introduced telemedicine in 1988, yet it has not been formally accepted owing to stakeholders' resistance and legal restrictions. Purpose: This study aims to determine the feasibility of implementing the telemedicine system and find solutions of its development and resistance by stakeholders. Method and Material: The authors present a unique case of Korea where telemedicine, despite its solid technological base, has not yet gained a foothold 32 years after its first pilot project. A narrative review was condected according to the timeline of government-driven telemedicine adoption in Korea, and an analysis was performed on the tendency of stakeholder resistance. Results: The analysis revealed that the relevant stakeholders were classified into doctors, patients, governments and some political parties. Among stakeholders as a whole, private healthcare physicians, who provide over 90% of primary care in Korea, amount to the largest demographic against the implementation of telemedicine. Their resistance was found to be the product of policies and problems arising from the coexistence of telemedicine and conventional healthcare regimes. With the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers are at odds with these stakeholders while implementing a pilot project. Conclusion: Fostering smooth policy implementation necessitates adopting an approach that reduces conflicts with private healthcare providers.

Physician Satisfaction With Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Mayo Clinic Florida Experience

“…5,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Further, especially since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine use has increased internationally. [18][19][20][21] Although various forms of telemedicine, including phone calls and electronic messaging, have been used extensively in our clinic for years, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to the implementation and successful use of audiovisual technologies for patient care visits across the Mayo Clinic enterprise. These visits occur via commonly used commercial software, as these platforms are secure, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant, and accessible to the general public.…”

A Survey of Telemedicine Use by Doctors in District Hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

“…With the pandemic stimulating the need to promote the use of telemedicine, changes were made to national telemedicine policies around the globe. For example, the USA temporarily relaxed various telemedicine restrictions and provided additional telemedicine funding [ 47 , 48 ], and in Korea, patient–doctor telemedicine was temporarily applied to the entire population [ 49 ]. In the UK, the National Health Service relaxed their ban on doctors bringing and using their own devices and advised clinicians to draw on their smartphones and apps (e.g., Skype, iMessage, and Zoom) for telemedicine activities [ 40 ].…”

Evaluating the robustness of a contact-less mHealth solution for personal and remote monitoring of blood oxygen saturation

“…In this context, mHealth, which is a new frontier of telehealth encompassing the use of mobile and wireless technologies to support digital health services, assumes crucial importance (Lupton 2013;Swan 2012;Ardito et al 2020;Tripathi et al 2020). Thanks to mHealth solutions, that allow people to self-monitor their vital parameters in any place and at any time through the use of mobile devices, patients can have their vital signs continuously monitored without having to physically go to a medical clinic, thus reducing the risk of virus transmission (Kim and Choi 2020). Moreover, the monitoring of vital signs undertaken by mobile devices allow immediate medical intervention when there is a deterioration in the health status, and reduces unnecessary hospital admissions, time and costs spent on transport, and healthrelated costs.…”