MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403411724 · doi:10.1136/emermed-2024-iaem.9

#237 Tele-emergency medicine: a systematic review of the impact of telemedicine on emergency medicine on quality of care, time to treatment, and accessibility versus traditional care

2024· review· en· W4403411724 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicineMedical emergencyMedicineQuality (philosophy)Emergency medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> Telemedicine has surged in popularity since the COVID-19 pandemic with widespread implementation across healthcare. In Emergency Medicine (EM), telemedicine—referred to as ‘tele-EM’—enhances patient flow and potentially reduces overcrowding by enabling timely remote consultations. This study systematically reviews the impact of tele-EM, focusing on quality of care, time to treatment, and accessibility compared to traditional in-person care. <h3>Methods</h3> Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Embase. Search terms included ‘telemedicine’, ‘telehealth’, ‘tele-emergency’, ‘emergency departments’, ‘quality of care’, ‘implementation’, and ‘impact’. Studies were selected based on their relevance to telemedicine interventions in emergency department settings. Exclusion criteria included non-EM populations, comparisons of telemedicine with other interventions, and failure to meet primary endpoints. Cohort studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. <h3>Results</h3> Of the 1,195 studies identified, 17 met the inclusion criteria. Tele-EM showed significant benefits, including a 20% reduction in transfer rates in rural emergency departments and a 30% decrease in paediatric interfacility transfers. Additionally, tele-EM shortened time to treatment, with a 20-minute reduction in time-to-ECG for myocardial infarction patients and a 50% reduction in time-to-head CT interpretation for neurological emergencies. Tele-EM also improved adherence to neonatal resuscitation guidelines by 25% and enhanced clinical decision-making by 20% for chest pain patients. Real-time video conferencing was the most utilized method of delivery. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Tele-EM demonstrates significant potential in EM, particularly in cardiology, stroke care, paediatrics, and psychiatry. It improves accessibility, reduces wait times, and enhances patient outcomes while potentially alleviating emergency department (ED) overcrowding through admission avoidance. However, limitations such as moderate-quality studies and regional biases affect the generalizability of these findings, potentially excluding certain patient populations. Future research should prioritize high-quality randomized trials to support broader implementation of tele-EM across diverse healthcare settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.263
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it