Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Department of Pediatrics, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jun 20;24(6):e33981. doi: 10.2196/33981.
Telehealth for emergency stroke care delivery (telestroke) has had widespread adoption, enabling many hospitals to obtain stroke center certification. Telehealth for pediatric emergency care has been less widely adopted.
Our primary objective was to determine whether differences in policy or certification requirements contributed to differential uptake of telestroke versus pediatric telehealth. We hypothesized that differences in financial incentives, based on differences in patient volume, prehospital routing policy, and certification requirements, contributed to differential emergency department (ED) adoption of telestroke versus pediatric telehealth.
We used the 2016 National Emergency Department Inventory-USA to identify EDs that were using telestroke and pediatric telehealth services. We surveyed all EDs using pediatric telehealth services (n=339) and a convenience sample of the 1758 EDs with telestroke services (n=366). The surveys characterized ED staffing, transfer patterns, reasons for adoption, and frequency of use. We used bivariate comparisons to examine differences in reasons for adoption and use between EDs with only telestroke services, only pediatric telehealth services, or both.
Of the 442 EDs surveyed, 378 (85.5%) indicated use of telestroke, pediatric telehealth, or both. EDs with both services were smaller in bed size, volume, and ED attending coverage than those with only telestroke services or only pediatric telehealth services. EDs with telestroke services reported more frequent use, overall, than EDs with pediatric telehealth services: 14.1% (45/320) of EDs with telestroke services reported weekly use versus 2.9% (8/272) of EDs with pediatric telehealth services (P<.001). In addition, 37 out of 272 (13.6%) EDs with pediatric telehealth services reported no consults in the past year. Across applications, the most frequently selected reason for adoption was "improving level of clinical care." Policy-related reasons (ie, for compliance with outside certification or standards or for improving ED performance on quality metrics) were rarely indicated as the most important, but these reasons were indicated slightly more often for telestroke adoption (12/320, 3.8%) than for pediatric telehealth adoption (1/272, 0.4%; P=.003).
In 2016, more US EDs had telestroke services than pediatric telehealth services; among EDs with the technology, consults were more frequently made for stroke than for pediatric patients. The most frequently indicated reason for adoption among all EDs was related to clinical care.
远程卒中护理传输(远程卒中)已被广泛采用,使许多医院获得了卒中中心认证。儿科急诊远程医疗的采用则相对较少。
我们的主要目的是确定政策或认证要求的差异是否导致远程卒中与儿科远程医疗的采用存在差异。我们假设,基于患者数量、院前转运政策和认证要求的差异,在财务激励方面的差异导致了急诊部(ED)对远程卒中与儿科远程医疗采用的差异。
我们使用 2016 年美国国家急诊部清单,确定使用远程卒中和儿科远程医疗服务的 ED。我们调查了所有使用儿科远程医疗服务的 ED(n=339)和 1758 家具有远程卒中服务的 ED 中的便利样本(n=366)。调查描述了 ED 的人员配备、转院模式、采用原因和使用频率。我们使用双变量比较来检查仅具有远程卒中服务、仅具有儿科远程医疗服务或同时具有这两种服务的 ED 之间采用原因和使用的差异。
在接受调查的 442 家 ED 中,378 家(85.5%)表示使用了远程卒中、儿科远程医疗或两者兼有。同时具有这两种服务的 ED 在床位数、容量和 ED 主治医生数量方面均小于仅具有远程卒中服务或仅具有儿科远程医疗服务的 ED。总体而言,使用远程卒中服务的 ED 报告的使用频率更高,14.1%(45/320)的使用远程卒中服务的 ED 报告每周使用,而 2.9%(8/272)的使用儿科远程医疗服务的 ED 报告每周使用(P<.001)。此外,在 272 家具有儿科远程医疗服务的 ED 中,有 37 家报告在过去一年中没有进行任何咨询。在所有应用中,采用的最常见原因是“提高临床护理水平”。政策相关原因(即,为了遵守外部认证或标准或为了提高 ED 在质量指标上的表现)很少被选为最重要的原因,但这些原因在采用远程卒中方面的选择略高于采用儿科远程医疗(12/320,3.8%)(P=.003)。
2016 年,美国更多的 ED 拥有远程卒中服务,而不是儿科远程医疗服务;在拥有该技术的 ED 中,针对卒中患者的咨询比儿科患者更频繁。所有 ED 中采用的最常见原因与临床护理有关。