A Review of Patient and Provider Satisfaction with Telemedicine
- PDF / 267,741 Bytes
- 7 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 1 Downloads / 189 Views
TELEMEDICINE AND TECHNOLOGY (J PORTNOY, SECTION EDITOR)
A Review of Patient and Provider Satisfaction with Telemedicine Mary Nguyen 1 & Morgan Waller 2 & Aarti Pandya 1 & Jay Portnoy 1,2
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Purpose of Review The purpose of this review is to describe the determinants of satisfaction with telemedicine (TM) and how they compare with in-person visits from both the perspective of patients and of providers. Recent Findings The use of TM will expand only if patients and providers are at least as satisfied with it as they are with in-person visits. Since deviations from expected care can result in reduced satisfaction regardless of the quality of the visit or objective medical outcomes, it is important to understand and to help form those expectations when possible. Patients consistently report 95–100% satisfaction rate with TM when compared with in-person appointments. They tend to cite the convenience of decreased travel times and costs as the main drivers for satisfaction with TM. Providers tend to be satisfied with TM if they have input into its development, there is administrative support, the technology is reliable and easy to use, and if there is adequate reimbursement for its use. Summary Satisfaction with TM is necessary for adoption of this new technology. To improve satisfaction it is important to consider factors that drive it both for patients and for providers. Keywords Telemedicine . Patient satisfaction . Provider satisfaction . Asthma
Introduction According to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, telemedicine (TM) can be defined as “the use of electronic information and telecommunications technologies to support and promote long-distance clinical health care, patient and professional health-related education, public health and health administration” [1]. To be widely adopted, TM must compete favorably with in-person visits in a variety of objective measures including clinical outcomes [2], cost (both direct and indirect) [3], and availability [4, 5••]. In addition, patients and providers need to be at least as satisfied with their telehealth experience as they are with in-person visits. If this is not achieved, they both will
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Telemedicine and Technology * Jay Portnoy [email protected] 1
Section of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, Children’s Mercy Hospital, 2401 Gillham Road, Kansas City, MO 64108, USA
2
Division of Telemedicine, Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO, USA
refuse to use TM and as a result, adoption of the new technology will languish. Objectively, use of TM for patient care can improve access by connecting patients to providers while reducing the need for travel and its associated expenses and inconvenience. Weibel et al. studied 423 patients at 13 military bases across Europe and found that patients saved an average of $485 in travel expenses, 438 driving miles, and 2.3 days of work or school per visit by using TM to see
Data Loading...
