Cason Jana
SPALDING UNIVERSITY, LOUISVILLE, KY, USA.
Int J Telerehabil. 2017 Jun 29;9(1):77-78. doi: 10.5195/ijt.2017.6225. eCollection 2017 Spring.
The Commentary contests the increasingly outdated and narrow use of the terminology 'face-to-face' (often abbreviated as F2F) to connote clinical interactions in which both the client and the practitioner are physically present in the same room or space. An expanded definition is necessary because when delivered synchronously via videoconferencing, telehealth also provides face-to-face services (i.e., the practitioner and the client view each other's faces). Terminology that uses face-to-face to connote only in-person care is limiting and perpetuates language that is out of line with progressive US regulatory language and broad interpretation within existing regulatory language. It is this author's hope that this commentary will raise awareness of the important policy implications associated with this seemingly minor distinction in terminology and impact the lingering misapplication of the term, face-to-face.
本评论对“面对面”（通常缩写为F2F）这一术语日益过时且狭隘的用法提出质疑，该术语用于表示客户和从业者在同一房间或空间中实际在场的临床互动。需要一个更宽泛的定义，因为通过视频会议同步提供服务时，远程医疗也能提供面对面服务（即从业者和客户能看到彼此的脸）。仅用“面对面”来表示亲自护理的术语具有局限性，使这种语言持续存在，这与美国进步的监管语言以及现有监管语言中的宽泛解释不一致。作者希望本评论能提高人们对这一术语看似细微的区别所带来的重要政策影响的认识，并影响“面对面”一词长期以来的误用情况。
