Addressing concerns and adapting psychological techniques for videoconsultations: A practical guide

Objective: The 2020 coronavirus pandemic required many psychologists to rapidly transition to telehealth services to reduce virus exposure. Telepsychology services expanded quickly in Australia. This article seeks to provide simple and practical recommendations for clinicians who are changing their practice. Method: A narrative literature review focusing on psychologists' concerns regarding telehealth-facilitated psychology or telepsychology was undertaken. Results: Research literature and guidelines from peak professional bodies such as The Australian Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association, inform two sections of the article: Common Concerns about Videoconsultations and;Practical Considerations for Effective Videoconsultations. Telepsychology, has numerous benefits, especially during emergency situations. However, concerns regarding efficacy, therapeutic alliance, and the digital divide have contributed to psychologists' unwillingness to use telepsychology. Evidence suggests that efficacy and therapeutic alliance is comparable between telepsychology and in-person services. Simple evidence-based adjustments to therapeutic practice can optimise videoconsultations and increase the effectiveness of telepsychology. Despite the rapid change to videoconsultations, evidence suggests that Australian psychologists need not be concerned about clinical efficacy or therapeutic alliance related to telepsychology. However, it is acknowledged that transitioning to telehealth models of care is disruptive. Conclusion: This paper can assist clinicians in selecting appropriate clients for telepsychology, increase effectiveness and mitigate risks. Key Points: What is already known about this topic: (1) Research supports the clinical efficacy and establishment of therapeutic alliance related to telepsychology services and highlights that concerns regarding the digital divide need to be evidence-based, not based on assumptions. (2) As outlined in this paper, it is important to consider client suitability and ethical considerations prior to delivering telepsychology services. (3) The adaptations to psychological techniques, as highlighted in this paper, can increase the effectiveness of videoconsultations. What this topic adds: (1) An examination of common concerns related to videoconsultations including: efficacy, therapeutic alliance and the digital divide. (2) A practical evidence-based checklist for pre-therapy videoconsultation considerations. (3) An evidence-based checklist of practice adaptations that can increase effectiveness in videoconsultation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Telehealth adoption in cancer clinical trials: An Australian perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer clinical trials have traditionally occurred in-person. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced adaptions of all aspects of cancer care (including clinical trials) so they can be delivered remotely. We aimed to quantify and qualify current use of telehealth and how it can be further improved and routinely integrated into cancer clinical trials in Australia. METHODS: We used a mixed-method study design, involving surveys of 14 multi-site Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trial Groups members across Australia (n = 98) and qualitative interviews with trial administrators and clinicians (n = 21). RESULTS: The results of our study indicated a strong willingness to use telehealth for certain transactions of clinical trials because it was perceived as a way of increasing efficiency and reach of services. Hybrid models (including telehealth and in-person methods), which considered transaction, cancer type, and patient preferences were most favorable. Additionally, telehealth allowed for greater equity to access and reduced trial burden but interestingly had little effect on increased diversity and recruitment. Factors influencing telehealth service implementation and uptake included communication among trial stakeholders, training, and learning from the experience of others in the clinical trials community. CONCLUSION: Many but not all aspects of clinical trial care are appropriate to be delivered via telehealth. A hybrid approach provides flexibility to trial delivery and may support greater equity of access to trials in the future. Our findings and actionable recommendations support the need for greater planning, training, and guidelines to enable telehealth to be better integrated into clinical trials. Opportunities exist to expand the use of remote patient monitoring to enable more objective data collection from trial participants in the future.

Cancer care and management during COVID-19: A comparison of in-person, video and telephone consultations.

In Australia, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the exponential growth in the delivery of telehealth services. Medicare data indicates that the majority of telehealth consultations have used the telephone, despite the known benefits of using video. The aim of this study was to understand the perceived quality and effectiveness of in-person, telephone and videoconsultations for cancer care. Data was collected via online surveys with consumers (n = 1162) and health professionals (n = 59), followed by semi-structured interviews with telehealth experienced health professionals (n = 22) and consumers (n = 18). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and significance was tested using the chi-square test. A framework analysis and thematic analysis were used for qualitative data. Results indicate telehealth is suitable for use across the cancer care pathway. However, consumers and health professionals perceived videoconsultations facilitated visual communication and improved patients' quality of care. The telephone was appropriate for short transactional consultations such as repeat prescriptions. Consumers were rarely given the choice of consultation modality. The choice of modality depended on a range of factors such as the type of consultation and stage of cancer care. Hybrid models of care utilising in-person, video and telephone should be developed and requires further guidance to promote the adoption of telehealth in cancer care.

Costs to the Medicare Benefits Schedule for general practitioner consultations: A time-series analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a catalyst for the introduction of additional telehealth funding (telehealth item numbers) for general practitioner (GP) consultations through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) in Australia. This study evaluated the impact of telehealth funding on costs to the MBS for GP consultations from January 2017 to December 2021. An interrupted time series analysis assessed MBS costs (initial and monthly growth) for GP consultations (in-person, videoconference, telephone) before and after additional telehealth item numbers were introduced. From January 2017 to February 2020, total MBS costs for GP consultations were, on average, $545 million per month compared to $592 million per month from March 2020 to December 2021. There was an initial cost increase of approximately $39 million in the first month after additional telehealth funding was introduced (p = 0.0001). Afterwards, there was no significant change in monthly costs (p = 0.539). The introduction of additional MBS telehealth funding increased overall MBS costs for GP consultations. This increased cost for GP telehealth services could save costs to society if it translates into improved continuity of care, decreased hospitalisations, reduced productivity losses and improved patient outcomes. Future policy reform should incorporate a cost-benefit analysis to determine if increased MBS costs for GP consultations are a good investment.

Economic Evaluations of Remote Patient Monitoring for Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review and summarize economic evaluations of noninvasive remote patient monitoring (RPM) for chronic diseases compared with usual care. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified economic evaluations of RPM for chronic diseases, compared with usual care. Searches of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit using keyword synonyms for RPM and economics identified articles published from up until September 2021. Title, abstract, and full-text reviews were conducted. Data extraction of study characteristics and health economic findings was performed. Article reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. RESULTS: This review demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of RPM was dependent on clinical context, capital investment, organizational processes, and willingness to pay in each specific setting. RPM was found to be highly cost-effective for hypertension and may be cost-effective for heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There were few studies that investigated RPM for diabetes or other chronic diseases. Studies were of high reporting quality, with an average Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards score of 81%. Of the final 34 included studies, most were conducted from the healthcare system perspective. Eighteen studies used cost-utility analysis, 4 used cost-effectiveness analysis, 2 combined cost-utility analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis, 1 used cost-consequence analysis, 1 used cost-benefit analysis, and 8 used cost-minimization analysis. CONCLUSIONS: RPM was highly cost-effective for hypertension and may achieve greater long-term cost savings from the prevention of high-cost health events. For chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure, cost-effectiveness findings differed according to disease severity and there was limited economic evidence for diabetes interventions.

Beyond forced telehealth adoption: A framework to sustain telehealth among allied health services.

INTRODUCTION: As COVID-19 restrictions reduce globally, services will determine what components of care will continue via telehealth. We aimed to determine the clinician, service, and system level factors that influence sustained use of telehealth and develop a framework to enhance sustained use where appropriate. METHODS: This study was conducted across 16 allied health departments over four health service facilities (Brisbane, Australia). It used a multi-method observational study design, involving telehealth service activity data from hospital administrative databases and qualitative interviews with allied health staff (n = 80). Data were integrated and analysed using Greenhalgh's Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability framework. RESULTS: Increased telehealth use during the peak COVID period reverted to in-person activity as restrictions eased. Telehealth is unlikely to be sustained without a clear strategy including determination of roles and responsibilities across the organisation. Clinician resistance due to forced adoption remains a key issue. The main motivator for clinicians to use telehealth was improved consumer-centred care. Benefits beyond this are needed to sustain telehealth and improvements are required to make the telehealth experience seamless for providers and recipients. Data were synthesised into a comprehensive framework that can be used as a blueprint for system-wide improvements and service enhancement or redesign. DISCUSSION: Sustainability of telehealth activity beyond the peak COVID period is unlikely without implementation strategies to address consumer, clinician, service, and system factors. The framework can inform how these strategies can be enacted. Whilst developed for allied health disciplines, it is likely applicable to other disciplines.

Specialist consultation activity and costs in Australia: Before and after the introduction of COVID-19 telehealth funding.

This study describes and analyses the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) activity and cost data for specialist consultations in Australia, as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To achieve this, activity and cost data for MBS specialist consultations conducted from March 2019 to February 2021 were analysed month-to-month. MBS data for in-person, videoconference and telephone consultations were compared before and after the introduction of COVID-19 MBS telehealth funding in March 2020. The total number of MBS specialist consultations claimed per month did not differ significantly before and after the onset of COVID-19 (p = 0.717), demonstrating telehealth substitution of in-person care. After the introduction of COVID-19 telehealth funding, the average number of monthly telehealth consultations increased (p < 0.0001), representing an average of 19% of monthly consultations. A higher proportion of consultations were provided by telephone when compared to services delivered by video. Patient-end services did not increase after the onset of COVID-19, signifying a divergence from the historical service delivery model. Overall, MBS costs for specialist consultations did not vary significantly after introducing COVID-19 telehealth funding (p = 0.589). Telehealth consultations dramatically increased during COVID-19 and patients continued to receive specialist care. After the onset of COVID-19, the cost per telehealth specialist consultation was reduced, resulting in increased cost efficiency to the MBS.

Economic evaluations of videoconference and telephone consultations in primary care: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Telehealth services using videoconference and telephone modalities have been increasing exponentially in primary care since the coronavirus pandemic. The challenge now is ensuring that these services remain sustainable. This review investigates the cost-effectiveness of videoconference and telephone consultations in primary care settings, by summarizing the available published evidence. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases was used to identify articles published from January 2000 to July 2020, using keyword synonyms for telehealth, primary care, and economic evaluation. Databases were searched, and title, abstract, and full-text reviews were conducted. Article reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. RESULTS: Twenty articles were selected for inclusion, with 12 describing telephone triage services, seven describing telehealth substitution services, and one describing another telehealth service in primary care. These services were delivered by nurses, doctors, and allied health clinicians. Of the 20 included studies, 11 used cost analyses, five used cost-minimization analyses, and four used one or more methods, including either a cost-consequence analysis, a cost-utility analysis, or a cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone and videoconference consultations in primary care were cost-effective to the health system when deemed clinically appropriate, clinician when time was used efficiently, and when overall demand on health services was reduced. The societal benefits of telehealth consultations should be considered an important part of telehealth planning and should influence funding reform decisions for telehealth services in primary care.

How Australian Health Care Services Adapted to Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of Telehealth Professionals.

Background: In Australia, telehealth services were used as an alternative method of health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a realist analysis of a survey of health professionals, we have sought to identify the underlying mechanisms that have assisted Australian health services adapt to the physical separation between clinicians and patients. Methods: Using a critical realist ontology and epistemology, we undertook an online survey of health professionals subscribing to the Australian Telehealth Society newsletter. The survey had close- and open-ended questions, constructed to identify contextual changes in the operating environment for telehealth services, and assess the mechanisms which had contributed to these changes. We applied descriptive and McNemar's Chi-square analysis for the close-ended component of the survey, and a reflexive thematic analysis approach for the open-ended questions which were framed within the activity based funding system which had previously limited telehealth services to regional Australia. Results: Of the 91 respondents most (73%) reported a higher volume of telephone-based care since COVID and an increase in use of video consultations (60% of respondents). Respondents felt that the move to provide care using telehealth services had been a "forced adoption" where clinicians began to use telehealth services (often for the first time) to maintain health care. Respondents noted significant changes in managerial and medical culture which supported the legitimisation of telehealth services as a mode of access to care. The support of leaders and the use personal and organisational networks to facilitate the operation of telehealth service were felt to be particularly valuable. Access to, and reliability of, the technology were considered extremely important for services. Respondents also welcomed the increased availability of more human and financial resources. Conclusions: During the pandemic, mechanisms that legitimise practise, build confidence, support relationships and supply resources have fostered the use of telehealth. This ongoing interaction between telehealth services, contexts and mechanisms is complex. The adoption of telehealth access to enable physically separated care, may mark a "new context;" or it could be that once the pandemic passes, previous policies and practises will re-assert themselves and curb support for telehealth-enabled care.

Building on the momentum: Sustaining telehealth beyond COVID-19.

The 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has resulted in tremendous growth in telehealth services in Australia and around the world. The rapid uptake of telehealth has mainly been due to necessity - following social distancing requirements and the need to reduce the risk of transmission. Although telehealth has been available for many decades, the COVID-19 experience has resulted in heightened awareness of telehealth amongst health service providers, patients and society overall. With increased telehealth uptake in many jurisdictions during the pandemic, it is timely and important to consider what role telehealth will have post-pandemic. In this article, we highlight five key requirements for the long-term sustainability of telehealth. These include: (a) developing a skilled workforce; (b) empowering consumers; (c) reforming funding; (d) improving the digital ecosystems; and (e) integrating telehealth into routine care.

Telehealth uptake in general practice as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

In March 2020, the Australian Government added new temporary telehealth services to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) to reduce the risk of patient-patient and patient-clinician transmission of the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19). Here, the MBS statistics for general practitioner activity and the associated costs are described; a small increase in both activity and costs for the new MBS telehealth items were observed. The opportunities for future research and policy implications are also discussed.

Telehealth for global emergencies: Implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is again reminding us of the importance of using telehealth to deliver care, especially as means of reducing the risk of cross-contamination caused by close contact. For telehealth to be effective as part of an emergency response it first needs to become a routinely used part of our health system. Hence, it is time to step back and ask why telehealth is not mainstreamed. In this article, we highlight key requirements for this to occur. Strategies to ensure that telehealth is used regularly in acute, post-acute and emergency situations, alongside conventional service delivery methods, include flexible funding arrangements, training and accrediting our health workforce. Telehealth uptake also requires a significant change in management effort and the redesign of existing models of care. Implementing telehealth proactively rather than reactively is more likely to generate greater benefits in the long-term, and help with the everyday (and emergency) challenges in healthcare.