“Nothing is going to replace an in-person visit”: Canadian long-term care providers’ and recipients’ perspectives on when telehealth for physician visits is not appropriate
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Within long-term care (LTC) homes, telehealth use has been found to reduce unnecessary emergency department transfers, support the care needs of rural and underserved communities, and supplement in-person physician care. Despite these benefits, it is not well understood when telehealth is not an appropriate medium for providing physician care to residents with complex health needs. This knowledge gap must be addressed given the recent rise in telehealth use in LTC homes in many health systems following the COVID-19 pandemic, when virtual care use increased in many health care sectors to limit travel and in-person exposure risks, that is expected to be maintained going forward. Methods: This analysis contributes to a broader evaluative study investigating care provider and care recipient experiences and preferences for physician telehealth in LTC homes within the Fraser Health region in British Columbia, Canada. For data collection, semi-structured interviews and focus groups were undertaken with seventy care providers (staff, physicians) and recipients (residents, family caregivers). Using a thematic approach, transcripts were analyzed to find common instances when using telehealth for physician care was seen as not appropriate across participant groups. Results: Three types of patient care activities were identified as not appropriate to be conducted via physician visits using telehealth. First, new patient visits were thought to benefit from an interpersonal and conversational familiarity that could not be supported by telehealth. Second, difficult in-depth conversations that required conversational nuance (e.g., eye contact, supportive body language), such as palliative care planning, were thought to be inappropriate for telehealth appointments. Finally, instances where LTC staff would need to perform hands-on clinical assessments on behalf of physicians who were attending virtually via telehealth were not seen as desirable. Conclusions: This analysis highlights perspectives surrounding when telehealth is not appropriate for providing physician services for residents in LTC based on the preferences and experiences shared by both care recipients and care providers. The findings present an opportunity to develop and implement guidelines on appropriate use of telehealth in LTC to support best care practices.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».