Premium
A Pilot Study of Usefulness of Clinician–Patient Videoconferencing for Making Routine Medical Decisions in the Nursing Home
Author(s) -
Laflamme Mark R.,
Wilcox David C.,
Sullivan Jacquelyn,
Schadow Gunther,
Lindbergh Donald,
Warvel Jill,
Buchanan Heydon,
Ising Terry,
Abernathy Greg,
Perkins Susan M.,
Daggy Joanne,
Frankel Richard M.,
Dexter Paul,
McDonald Clement J.,
Weiner Michael
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of the american geriatrics society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.992
H-Index - 232
eISSN - 1532-5415
pISSN - 0002-8614
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53422.x
Subject(s) - videoconferencing , medicine , coding (social sciences) , teleconference , nursing , medical emergency , multimedia , statistics , mathematics , computer science
Objectives: To pilot and assess the role of videoconferencing in clinicians' medical decision‐making and their interactions with nursing home residents (NHRs). Design: Paired virtual and bedside examinations. Face‐to‐face (FTF) examination of NHRs by off‐site clinicians immediately followed videoconferencing between the same clinician–NHR pair. Setting: A 240‐bed, county‐managed, urban nursing home. Participants: NHRs (n=35) and clinicians (n=3) receiving or providing routine care between 2002 and 2003. Measurements: Orders generated by clinicians, clinicians' ratings of videoconferencing, and coded review of video encounters. After both examinations, clinicians rated the encounters and generated orders necessary for NHRs. Orders were categorized and counted according to timing (before or after the FTF visit). Clinician–NHR interactions were assessed using coding videos with a 31‐item instrument. Results: For 71% of the encounters, clinicians stated that videoconferencing facilitated their assessment. Difficulties included sound quality (19%) and participants' familiarity with videoconferencing (7%). Although NHRs were alert in 50% of encounters, 62% of alert NHRs did not indicate understanding of the recommended treatment. Conclusion: FTF examination was superior for most assessments, but videoconferencing was judged to be valuable, especially for wound care. Even when NHRs were alert, informed medical decision‐making by NHRs with their clinicians was limited. Enhancing videoconferencing quality and providing more training about informed decision‐making using videoconferencing might improve the effectiveness of the technology.