Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Health Systems Management Department, The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Emek Yezreel, Israel.
JMIR Hum Factors. 2024 Mar 25;11:e50676. doi: 10.2196/50676.
The safety of telemedicine in general and telephone triage (teletriage) safety in particular have been a focus of concern since the 1970s. Today, telehealth, now subsuming teletriage, has a basic structure and process intended to promote safety. However, inadequate telehealth systems may also compromise patient safety. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated rapid but uneven telehealth growth, both technologically and professionally. Within 5-10 years, the field will likely be more technologically advanced; however, these advances may still outpace professional standards. The need for an evidence-based system is crucial and urgent.
Our aim was to explore ways that developed teletriage systems produce safe outcomes by examining key system components and questioning long-held assumptions.
We examined safety by performing a narrative review of the literature using key terms concerning patient safety in teletriage. In addition, we conducted system analysis of 2 typical formal systems, physician led and nurse led, in Israel and the United States, respectively, and evaluated those systems' respective approaches to safety. Additionally, we conducted in-depth interviews with representative physicians and 1 nurse using a qualitative approach.
The review of literature indicated that research on various aspects of telehealth and teletriage safety is still sparse and of variable quality, producing conflicting and inconsistent results. Researchers, possibly unfamiliar with this complicated field, use an array of poorly defined terms and appear to design studies based on unfounded assumptions. The interviews with health care professionals demonstrated several challenges encountered during teletriage, mainly making diagnosis from a distance, treating unfamiliar patients, a stressful atmosphere, working alone, and technological difficulties. However, they reported using several measures that help them make accurate diagnoses and reasonable decisions, thus keeping patient safety, such as using their expertise and intuition, using structured protocols, and considering nonmedical factors and patient preferences (shared decision-making).
Remote encounters about acute, worrisome symptoms are time sensitive, requiring decision-making under conditions of uncertainty and urgency. Patient safety and safe professional practice are extremely important in the field of teletriage, which has a high potential for error. This underregulated subspecialty lacks adequate development and substantive research on system safety. Research may commingle terminology and widely different, ill-defined groups of decision makers with wide variation in decision-making skills, clinical training, experience, and job qualifications, thereby confounding results. The rapid pace of telehealth's technological growth creates urgency in identifying safe systems to guide developers and clinicians about needed improvements.
自 20 世纪 70 年代以来,远程医疗的安全性,尤其是电话分诊(远程分诊)的安全性一直是人们关注的焦点。如今,远程医疗(现在包含远程分诊)具有基本的结构和流程,旨在促进安全性。但是,不完善的远程医疗系统也可能危及患者安全。COVID-19 大流行加速了技术和专业水平的快速但不平衡的远程医疗发展。在 5-10 年内,该领域可能会在技术上更加先进;但是,这些进步可能仍然超过专业标准。建立基于证据的系统至关重要且紧迫。
我们旨在通过检查关键系统组件并质疑长期以来的假设,探讨已建立的远程分诊系统如何产生安全结果。
我们通过使用与远程分诊患者安全相关的关键术语对文献进行叙述性综述来检查安全性。此外,我们对以色列和美国的两个典型正式系统(分别由医生和护士领导)进行了系统分析,并评估了这些系统各自的安全方法。此外,我们还使用定性方法对有代表性的医生和 1 名护士进行了深入访谈。
文献综述表明,关于远程医疗和远程分诊安全性各个方面的研究仍然很少且质量参差不齐,得出的结果相互矛盾且不一致。研究人员可能不熟悉这一复杂领域,他们使用了一系列定义不明确的术语,并且似乎是根据毫无根据的假设来设计研究的。与医疗保健专业人员的访谈表明,在远程分诊过程中遇到了一些挑战,主要是从远处进行诊断,治疗不熟悉的患者,在紧张的氛围中工作,独自工作以及遇到技术困难。但是,他们报告说使用了一些有助于他们做出准确诊断和合理决策的措施,从而确保患者安全,例如利用他们的专业知识和直觉,使用结构化的协议以及考虑非医疗因素和患者偏好(共同决策)。
关于急性,令人担忧的症状的远程就诊是时间敏感的,需要在不确定和紧急的情况下做出决策。远程分诊领域的患者安全和安全的专业实践至关重要,因为该领域有很高的出错风险。这个监管不足的专业领域缺乏足够的发展和对系统安全性的实质性研究。研究可能会混淆术语和决策制定者的广泛不同,定义不明确的群体,而决策制定者的决策技能,临床培训,经验和工作资格差异很大,从而使结果变得混乱。远程医疗技术增长的快速步伐迫切需要确定安全系统,以为开发人员和临床医生提供有关所需改进的指导。