A Teleconsultation Device, Consult Station, for Remote Primary Care: Multisite Prospective Cohort Study.
absenteeism from work
consultation
cost-benefit
general practice
health care system
primary care
proof-of-concept
remote medical consultation
telemedicine
telemedicine booth
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 05 2022
17 05 2022
Historique:
received:
10
09
2021
accepted:
05
02
2022
revised:
26
01
2022
pubmed:
8
3
2022
medline:
20
5
2022
entrez:
7
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Telemedicine technology is a growing field, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consult Station (Health for Development) is the first telemedicine device enabling completely remote medical consultations, including the concurrent collection of clinical parameters and videos. Our aim was to collect data on the multisite urban and suburban implementation of the Consult Station for primary care and assess its contribution to health care pathways in areas with a low density of medical services. In a proof-of-concept multisite prospective cohort study, 2134 consecutive patients had teleconsultations. Consultation characteristics were analyzed from both the patient and practitioner perspective. In this study, the main users of Consult Station were younger women consulting for low-severity seasonal infections. Interestingly, hypertension, diabetes, and preventive medical consultations were almost absent, while they accounted for almost 50% of consultations with a general practitioner (GP). We showed that for all regions where the Consult Station was implemented, the number of consultations increased as GP density decreased. The study of practitioner characteristics showed GPs from metropolitan areas are motivated to work with this device remotely, with a high level of technology acceptability. The multisite implementation of Consult Station booths is suitable for primary care and could also address the challenge of "medical deserts." In addition, further studies should be performed to evaluate the possible contribution of Consult Station booths to limiting work absenteeism.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Telemedicine technology is a growing field, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consult Station (Health for Development) is the first telemedicine device enabling completely remote medical consultations, including the concurrent collection of clinical parameters and videos.
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to collect data on the multisite urban and suburban implementation of the Consult Station for primary care and assess its contribution to health care pathways in areas with a low density of medical services.
METHODS
In a proof-of-concept multisite prospective cohort study, 2134 consecutive patients had teleconsultations. Consultation characteristics were analyzed from both the patient and practitioner perspective.
RESULTS
In this study, the main users of Consult Station were younger women consulting for low-severity seasonal infections. Interestingly, hypertension, diabetes, and preventive medical consultations were almost absent, while they accounted for almost 50% of consultations with a general practitioner (GP). We showed that for all regions where the Consult Station was implemented, the number of consultations increased as GP density decreased. The study of practitioner characteristics showed GPs from metropolitan areas are motivated to work with this device remotely, with a high level of technology acceptability.
CONCLUSIONS
The multisite implementation of Consult Station booths is suitable for primary care and could also address the challenge of "medical deserts." In addition, further studies should be performed to evaluate the possible contribution of Consult Station booths to limiting work absenteeism.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35254263
pii: v24i5e33507
doi: 10.2196/33507
pmc: PMC9157322
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e33507Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
©Géraldine Falgarone, Guilhem Bousquet, Arnaud Wilmet, Albert Brizio, Valérie Faure, Celestin Guillouet, Franck Baudino, Isabelle Roque, Samuel Mayol, Frederic Pamoukjian. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 17.05.2022.
Références
Rev Bras Med Trab. 2020 Apr 24;16(4):457-465
pubmed: 32754661
Telemed J E Health. 2015 Feb;21(2):81-5
pubmed: 25474190
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Oct 23;8(10):e18426
pubmed: 33095175
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Nov;26 Suppl 2:639-47
pubmed: 21989616
BMJ. 2018 Sep 14;362:k3934
pubmed: 30217932
J Eval Clin Pract. 2022 Feb;28(1):43-48
pubmed: 34786796
Telemed J E Health. 2021 Dec;27(12):1385-1392
pubmed: 33606560
Br J Gen Pract. 2021 Feb 25;71(704):e166-e177
pubmed: 33558332
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Aug 27;20(1):807
pubmed: 32854697
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Mar;68(668):108-109
pubmed: 29472202
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2133877
pubmed: 34817586
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 1;4(12):e2141233
pubmed: 34964850
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Apr 2;6(2):e18810
pubmed: 32238336
J Health Econ. 2019 Dec;68:102242
pubmed: 31605834
BMJ. 2018 Sep 13;362:k3899
pubmed: 30213869
Pediatr Transplant. 2022 Feb;26(1):e14138
pubmed: 34505750
J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Jan;24(1):4-12
pubmed: 29320966
Oncologist. 2021 Apr;26(4):e679-e685
pubmed: 33453121
J Telemed Telecare. 2008;14(3):127-9
pubmed: 18430277
Br J Gen Pract. 2021 May 27;71(707):276
pubmed: 34045257
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Jan;68(666):e1-e8
pubmed: 29109115
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Aug 24;17(17):
pubmed: 32846878
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 07;(9):CD002098
pubmed: 26343551
Int J Med Inform. 2021 Jul;151:104483
pubmed: 33984625
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Mar;31(3):269-75
pubmed: 26269131
J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 25;10(23):
pubmed: 34884221
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 17;20(4):e150
pubmed: 29625956
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Dec 9;22(12):e24328
pubmed: 33245699