MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2113638491 · doi:10.1176/pn.38.23.0011

Telepsychiatry a Boon In Rural Canada

2003· article· en· W2113638491 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan Arehart-Treichel

Notice bibliographique

RevuePsychiatric News · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTelepsychiatryVideoconferencingMedicineTelemedicineMental healthLibrary scienceFamily medicinePsychiatryHealth carePolitical scienceTelecommunicationsEngineeringComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article International NewsFull AccessTelepsychiatry a Boon In Rural CanadaJoan Arehart-TreichelJoan Arehart-TreichelSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:5 Dec 2003https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.38.23.0011Douglas Urness, M.D.: With telepsychiatry, “you are knocking down geographic distances between psychiatrists and patients.”Psychiatrist Douglas Urness, M.D., of Ponoka, Alberta, is a passionate practitioner of telepsychiatry. Urness will switch on his television screen and view and listen to a patient located in a hospital or clinic videoconferencing center in rural Alberta.Patients and doctors using the system can interact in real time between approximately 100 videoconferencing centers in the province. The network began in 1996 using six sites and has subsequently expanded in collaboration with regional health authorities and through a provincial initiative called Wellnet.Urness has been doing telepsychiatry with patients half time for seven years.What are some of the pros and cons of doing psychiatric evaluations via telepsychiatry? How do patients feel about it? How about legality? Costs? And for what kinds of patients is a telepsychiatric evaluation appropriate? Urness attempted to answer these questions at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, which was held in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in late October and early November.Input was also provided by Richard O’Reilly, M.D., a psychiatrist with St. Joseph’s Health Care in London, Ontario, who is researching the effectiveness of telepsychiatry while providing telepsychiatry services to a community in northern Ontario.One of the biggest advantages of telepsychiatry is that “you are knocking down geographic distances between psychiatrists and patients,” Urness explained. This means not only that psychiatrists are made accessible to persons in rural areas, but also that the risks psychiatrists face in trying to physically visit patients in rural areas are reduced. “Last year, a psychiatrist from Edmonton tragically died while flying to a remote community in northern Alberta,” Urness said.Videoconferencing speeds up the “getting to know you” phase of a doctor-patient relationship, Urness has found. True, “you cannot shake patients’ hands or smell them via videoconferencing,” he admitted. But because you lose these sensory inputs, you tend to pay more attention to what patients have to say.If a third person is in the room during videoconferencing, certain patients—often seniors and adolescents—may be reluctant to open up and talk honestly. Nonetheless, not having a third person present can be risky in certain situations. For instance, one psychiatrist present at a telepsychiatry session related how a patient he was seeing via videoconferencing started destroying chairs in the room, and there was no one to stop her from doing so. “I felt powerless,” he admitted. One way to reduce such dangers, O’Reilly said, is to have a nurse stationed in a room next door to where the patient is being videoconferenced. That is what he does.How Patients See It“I don’t like telepsychiatry!,” one patient complained to Urness at the start of a videoconferencing session. “And I don’t think I’d like you even if I met you in person.” On the whole, though, patient satisfaction with videoconferencing has been extensively studied and consistently appears to be quite high—about 90 percent—although patients, in general, do appear to have a slight preference for face-to-face contact.As far as legality issues are concerned, even though psychiatrists and patients do not have personal contact in videoconferencing, the technique is legal in Canada. A psychiatrist must be accredited in the province where he or she delivers telepsychiatry and in the province where the patient is located.Weighing Cost ConcernsVideoconferencing may cost somewhat more per patient session than a face-to-face session because of the expense of the equipment used. Yet, Urness pointed out, “you can see a lot more patients with telepsychiatry in the same amount of time, which helps justify the costs of the technology.” Also, it is cheaper to provide evaluations via videoconferencing than to fly a psychiatrist to a rural area for that purpose, Urness added.Telepsychiatry can be successfully used with various types of patients, he noted. It also can be used reliably to assess symptoms of various mental and behavioral states—for example, anxiety, depression, obsessions and compulsions, and schizophrenia.However, it is not very good at revealing certain types of psychiatric conditions—for instance, negative schizophrenia symptoms. And it is not appropriate for patients who are agitated or violent, Urness stressed.Telepsychiatry in Canada, as in the United States, is usually funded through grants, and it is often difficult to keep programs going after the grants run out, Urness said. Nonetheless, Canadian telepsychiatry has been picking up momentum in the past few years. Eighteen telepsychiatry programs now operate in Canada and serve patients in such far-flung places as Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories. ▪ ISSUES NewArchived

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,289
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,616

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePsychiatric NewsMême sujetTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationTravaux en français237 207