Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock
Home About us Editors Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives Search Instructions Subscribe Advertise Login 
Users online:479   Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size   


 
 Table of Contents    
CONSENSUS STATEMENT  
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 173-179
The world health organization collaborating center for emergency and trauma (WHO-CCET) in South East Asia, the world academic council of emergency medicine (WACEM), and The American college of academic international medicine (ACAIM) 2021 framework for using telemedicine technology at healthcare institutions


1 Clinical Contact Center, VA Sunshine Healthcare Network 8, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
2 Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome “Sapienza”, Rome, Italy
3 Department of Emergency Medicine, Sarasota Memorial Hospital, Florida State University, Sarasota, Florida, USA
4 Department of Emergency Medicine and Critical Care, MGM Medical College and Hospital, MGMIHS, Mumbai, India
5 Director of Emergency Medicine Research, South Shore University Hospital/Northwell Health; Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Bay Shore, New York, USA
6 Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Center, Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai, India
7 Chief Medical Office Holistic Family Medicine, US
8 Department of Emergency Medicine, CS Mott Children's Hospital of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
9 Department of Medicine, IGMC, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India
10 Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
11 Department of Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
12 Department of Director and CEO, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
13 Indian Institute of Management Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
14 Location VU University Medical Center, General Internal Medicine, Acute Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The, Netherlands
15 Department of Emergency Medicine, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, England, United Kingdom
16 Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
17 Department of Anaesthesiology, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
18 Department of Emergency Medicine, WHO Collaborating Center for Emergency and Trauma, AIIMS, New Delhi, India
19 Department of Emergency Medicine, JPN Apex Trauma Center, WHO Collaborating Center for Emergency and Trauma AIIMS, New Delhi, India
20 Department of Research an Innovation, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
21 Departments of Emergency Medicine, New York Presbyterian, Weill Cornell Medicine and Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, USA
22 Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, England, United Kingdom

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission29-Jul-2021
Date of Acceptance31-Jul-2021
Date of Web Publication30-Sep-2021
 

   Abstract 


The coronavirus disease 2019 crisis has forced the world to integrate telemedicine into health delivery systems in an unprecedented way. To deliver essential care, lawmakers, physicians, patients, payers, and health systems have all adopted telemedicine and redesigned delivery processes with accelerated speed and coordination in a fragmented way without a long-term vision or uniformed standards. There is an opportunity to learn from the experiences gained by this pandemic to help shape a better health-care system that standardizes telemedicine to optimize the overall efficiency of remote health-care delivery. This collaboration focuses on four pillars of telemedicine that will serve as a framework to enable a uniformed, standardized process that allows for remote data capture and quality, aiming to improve ongoing management outside the hospital. In this collaboration, we recommend learning from this experience by proposing a telemedicine framework built on the following four pillars-patient safety and confidentiality; metrics, analytics, and reform; recording of audio-visual data as a health record; and reimbursement and accountability.

Keywords: Coronavirus disease 2019, pillars of telemedicine, telehealth, telemedicine, virtual care

How to cite this article:
Sikka V, Somma SD, Galwankar SC, Sinha S, Garg N, Talwalkar N, Garg S, Mahajan P, Chauhan V, Moreno-Walton L, Dubhashi S, Dutta V, Saddikuti V, B. Nanayakkara PW, Grover J, Paranjape K, Singh S, Sharma1 P, Bhoi S, Sinha T, Stawicki SP, Garg M, Sardesai I. The world health organization collaborating center for emergency and trauma (WHO-CCET) in South East Asia, the world academic council of emergency medicine (WACEM), and The American college of academic international medicine (ACAIM) 2021 framework for using telemedicine technology at healthcare institutions. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2021;14:173-9

How to cite this URL:
Sikka V, Somma SD, Galwankar SC, Sinha S, Garg N, Talwalkar N, Garg S, Mahajan P, Chauhan V, Moreno-Walton L, Dubhashi S, Dutta V, Saddikuti V, B. Nanayakkara PW, Grover J, Paranjape K, Singh S, Sharma1 P, Bhoi S, Sinha T, Stawicki SP, Garg M, Sardesai I. The world health organization collaborating center for emergency and trauma (WHO-CCET) in South East Asia, the world academic council of emergency medicine (WACEM), and The American college of academic international medicine (ACAIM) 2021 framework for using telemedicine technology at healthcare institutions. J Emerg Trauma Shock [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Dec 1];14:173-9. Available from: https://www.onlinejets.org/text.asp?2021/14/3/173/327082





   Introduction Top


The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has transformed the landscape of health care, and telemedicine has emerged as one of the key drivers of this change.[1],[2] Since February 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with more than 30 million cases and over 600,000 deaths in the United States (US), as well as widespread social and economic changes.[3] Worldwide, we have seen over 180 million cases with over 4 million deaths.[4] The ability of our health-care system to adapt with extraordinary speed under crisis has never been more evident as we endured the ongoing pandemic. Early on in the US experience, substantial increases in telemedicine and remote clinical services were required by health systems due to the concern for workplace transmission of COVID-19, the implementation of social-distancing policies, and the redeployment of health-care personnel.[5] Telemedicine has proven to be both safe and effective during the times of crisis.[6] Hospital footprints are shrinking due to shifts to outpatient care, changing demographics, and new interventions. As this trend continues, more diagnosis and care (as well as efforts to avoid treatment through prevention) will take place in the outpatient setting. A telemedicine visit can be conducted without exposing staff to infections during outbreaks.[7] Telemedicine practice can prevent the transmission of infectious diseases, reducing risks to both health-care workers and patients. A growing number of patients are forgoing face-to-face visits and instead calling, texting, and video conferencing with their clinicians. This rapid change has proven clear benefits, making health care more convenient and seamless.

The development of guidelines and standards for telemedicine are an important and valuable process to help ensure safe and effective delivery of quality health care. Some organizations, such as the American Telemedicine Association,[8] have made the development of standards and guidelines a priority. Guidelines have been created and tailored by specialty such as psychiatry,[9] dermatology,[10] ophthalmology,[11] neurology/stroke,[12] rehabilitation,[13] sleep medicine,[14] and gastroenterology.[15]

In general, health-care delivery is complex and heterogeneous, which leads to the risk of fragmentation and increased inefficiencies. The options for health-care delivery are quickly moving outside hospitals due to the advances in diagnostics, medical, and clinical services. More specifically, telemedicine is delivered through different modalities such as remote care in a patient's home, telemedicine centers operated by a hospital or third party, care delivery through mobile vehicles, and care outside of a formal hospital setting using information and communication technologies (ICT) or digital technologies. Telemedicine is a constantly evolving science, as it incorporates new advancements in technology and responds and adapts to changing health needs and contexts of societies.[16] Telemedicine helps in improving access to care in resource-constrained settings and remote areas. Telemedicine has grown significantly during the last two decades due to increases in emergencies, pandemics, and natural disasters.[16] Technological advances in transport systems, ICT, data sciences, and medicine have contributed significantly to the growth of telemedicine from high-income regions and low-and-middle-income regions. [Figure 1] illustrates the telemedicine ecosystem.
Figure 1: Telemedicine ecosystem

Click here to view


Many successful organizations such as the Virginia Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Aravind Eye Hospital, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment and device manufacturers have adopted telemedicine for better coordination among various stakeholders of care delivery while being able to improve care and reduce cost simultaneously. Recent advancements include the use of drones for the delivery of supplies to remote areas and use of artificial intelligence to improve care. Currently, medical drones have been used by DHL, DJI, Matternet, and Zipline for new product launches, delivering medical samples, drugs, and vaccines.[17] According to Global Market insights,[17] the medical drones' market is expected to grow from $88 million to nearly $400 million by 2025.

The World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Emergency and Trauma (WHO-CCET) in South East Asia constituted a group of experts from The World Academic Council of Emergency Medicine (WACEM) and The American College of Academic International Medicine (ACAIM). The World Academic Council of Emergency Medicine-American College of Academic International Medicine (WACEM-ACAIM) represents a collaboration of professional societies committed to advancing academic international medicine and providing clinicians with evidence-based strategies for improving health care. WACEM-ACAIM has previously characterized how telemedicine has been leveraged to optimize care while protecting health-care workers and the communities they serve.[17] This current consensus aims to create a scientific basis for the use of telemedicine in health care. This collaboration discusses the four pillars of telemedicine [Figure 2], which are:
Figure 2: Four pillars of telemedicine

Click here to view


  1. Patient safety and confidentiality
  2. Metrics, analytics, and reform
  3. Recording of audio-visual data as a health record
  4. Reimbursements and accountability.



   Pillar 1: Patient Safety and Confidentiality Top


Patient safety by the way of confidentiality and privacy protection is a serious concern with telemedicine. Patient privacy in telemedicine has largely been studied on the macro level with a focus on Internet connection, mobile and app-based technologies, and protection of data.[18],[19] However, these macrolevel approaches are not patient-centric and often do not align with micro level challenges using telemedicine where front line care is provided. Protected health information (PHI) is always at risk for inappropriately being shared. The creation, storage, and transfer of PHI through telemedicine networks remain vulnerable to breaches in safety, privacy, and confidentiality of patient information.[19]

The International Standards Organization (ISO) has laid the foundation for the protection of PHI in telemedicine. The key is that PHI should only be accessed by accountable individuals who can ensure information security as required by ISO Standards. In addition, the standard provides guidelines for the entire life cycle of patient data, from the creation to the destruction of the data. Adherence with standards is becoming more challenging with advances in technology.[18] The biggest challenge for the guidelines is to ensure compliance. Cloud-based systems pose another level of complexity to this challenge where an information breach is at higher risk.

Since telemedicine involves the transmission of patient data, maintaining patient privacy through cyber-security is important.[20] The US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides guidance around entities and PHI, along with privacy and security rules. However, telemedicine poses unique challenges[21],[22] such as how to distribute the Notice of Privacy Practice to patients or have all involved parties sign a Business Associate Agreement to provide services. In the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK), telemedicine is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, where processing and holding health data relies on seven defined principles and legal principles of explicit and not implied consent.[23]

HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996)

ISO rules are set across international territories. However, local rules in the different parts of the world vary on how they are viewed and valued. Privacy standards are perceived and accepted differently as well. In the US, HIPAA is strictly monitored and complied with to ensure that PHI is protected, not just in terms of technology, but also in terms of availability to insurance providers.

Cyber-security: The threat of hackers

When providing health care through telemedicine, there are multiple privacy issues at risk. Potential privacy issues include leaking or hacking of PHI to unwanted parties, accessing PHI beyond what is necessary, the security or lack thereof of electronic health record (EHR) systems, and the inappropriate sharing of data by patients.[24] For example, privacy and cybersecurity issues remain in cases of automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators, insulin pumps, and informatics.[25] In addition, there has been a noticeable shift toward using online platforms and social media websites to exchange PHI. The US Office for Civil Rights has temporarily allowed for telehealth communications to occur over applications such as Zoom, Google Hangouts, and Facebook Messenger Video Chat--all of which have a potential for security breaches.[26]

Smart phones and applications

In telemedicine, smartphones have many advantages in terms of addressing the diversity of needs for stakeholders including doctors, nurses, business administrators, and patients themselves.[27] Health professionals can utilize smart phones to conduct teleconsultations to manage health-care records, prescribe medications, and view examination results.[28] Smartphones can act as a remote access tool for health records for physicians and as a means for patients to access their own portal with relevant health information.[29]

The risk of disclosure and breach is even higher for these apps as adequate cybersecurity measures are still not in place.[27] Even if the proper safeguards are in place, it is often difficult to verify the user. In addition, PHI is viewed to have a higher value than other online personal information such as credit card data, making it more attractive to hackers.[27],[30]

Due consideration should be given to assisting patients and physicians with technology setup, providing technical support, and responding to questions and concerns.[31]

Consent forms

Consent forms are required to protect patients and physicians. They ensure that both patient and physicians understand how PHI will be accessed and used. Consent forms are legal documents completed by people involved in the transfer of sensitive information. They also explain how PHI will be accessed and the safeguards in place to protect PHI.[32] Consent forms also limit what information is shared because the document controls what PHI is released when signed by both parties.

Clinical safety during teleconsultation

Telemedicine is limited by the inability to evaluate the certain aspects of the physical examination and may be unsuitable for conditions that are acute or life-threatening. Some data such as history, weight, and height can be provided using the tools available in the telemedicine platform. To ensure patient safety, teleconsultations should be used as a diagnostic and follow-up platform. If a person's condition worsens or if time sensitive symptoms develop during the teleconsultation, the physician should recommend that the patient present immediately to a hospital.[33],[34] A shared decision-making model that allows the patient and physician to communicate with each other while weighing the risks and benefits of certain treatments or need to go to an acute facility for follow-up is recommended.[35]


   Pillar 2: Metrics, Analytics, and Reform Top


While the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted health-care delivery in many ways, little is known regarding how the volume, site, and content of telemedicine in the US have changed. Despite the increased use of telemedicine, its uptake has varied across the US and has not been correlated, at a regional level, with COVID-19 burden. These findings are notable because little is known about the association between telemedicine utilization in primary care delivery during the pandemic.[36]

This is largely due to the fact that telemedicine currently lacks standardized metrics and evidence-based professional performance standards that allow for measurable outcomes and associated reimbursement schedules. A retrospective study from January 2016 to December 2017 with a manual review of 390 encounters emphasized the need for CPT codes to perform telemedicine research in the administrative data.[37] However, to have CPT codes, there must be standardized metrics that all telemedicine encounters use to ensure all required data elements are captured. This will allow for accurate Levels 1–5 billing, further discussed in Pillar 4.

An explicit understanding of the specific mechanisms by which telemedicine contributes to optimal quality of care needs to be delineated, then analyzed and perfected. The potential contributions of telemedicine to achieving optimal health status in the community needs to be demonstrated to establish telemedicine as a permanent modality of patient care after the COVID-19 pandemic. This implies an inclusive focus on a continuum of care management focused on patients rather than diseases, ranging from preventive services to therapeutic and rehabilitative services to humane and dignified end-of-life support strategies. The examples of metrics to include are first contact resolution (or ability to manage a patient's chief complaint during the telemedicine encounter), 72-h return (i.e., to the emergency department, urgent care, primary care physician, or telemedicine encounter), and phone versus video encounters (since video telemedicine encounters are generally preferred over telephone). The institutional operation team should review the relevant metric data and ensure it improves through an iterative process to meet accepted benchmarks (when available).


   Pillar 3: Recording of Audio-visual Data as a Health Record Top


Since telemedicine is already on a potentially recordable platform, capturing the physician-patient encounter can have several advantages, namely including a clear visual record. Unfortunately, our current telemedicine system has limited protections to the physician-patient interaction other than electronic documentation. Although it is true that face-to-face visits are not recorded as part of a classic patient visit, telemedicine is vulnerable. Unless the patient has equipment or can provide verifiable findings, there are limited prescriptive vital signs and physical examination findings to support a physician's recommendations. Our recommendation is that telemedicine encounters should be recorded. The challenge of this call to action will be the necessary digital library/database space to house these encounters. Having a recording of the encounter allows the physician and patient a way of capturing the encounter to detail what was capable for evaluation and what follow-up visits are necessary. This process protects both parties from medico-legal entanglements that can result from this limited encounter. This recording essentially becomes a case file in the patient's chart that can be accessed later.

HIPAA and privacy regulations do not prevent a patient from recording their own health-care encounters. These laws and regulations are designed to protect the patient's health information from accidental or intentional disclosure by health-care workers and related entities. These regulations do not, however, prohibit patients from disclosing their own PHI. If the patient records and possesses a sole copy of their patient encounter, the patient can do nearly anything with the information so long as it does not violate another party's privacy rights. It is thus recommended to instruct patients about rules related to personal recordings like one would with smartphone recordings during an in-person clinical encounter. If an instructed patient makes a surreptitious recording and posts it online, for example, and it can be established that it was disclosed by the patient, the physician should not have exposure for HIPAA or privacy law violations.


   Pillar 4: Reimbursements and Accountability Top


The final pillar of a successful telemedicine system is commensurate reimbursement for care provided. One interaction, particularly, is the typically positive relationship between information technology and cost. However, this relationship has not been consistently demonstrated in telemedicine. Indeed, the capabilities and quality (or clinical effectiveness) of the underlying technology continue to advance at pace without a commensurate increase in price. Consequently, we may never be able to ascertain definitively the cost-effectiveness of this electronic information technology-based care or get a stationary assessment of its economic and clinical merit or its ultimate contribution to society.[38]

In the US, Medicare coverage applies across the country, but reimbursement rules vary for private payers.[39],[40] Per existing law, private payers are required by state law to reimburse a telemedicine encounter at the same rate as a comparable in-person visit. In the EU, countries such as the UK, Italy, Belgium, France, Portugal, Sweden, and Germany pay at par with a physical visit.[41]

In the US, handling medical malpractice[42] and complying with federal anti-kickback statutes are two additional hurdles physicians need to consider. Special insurance coverage for telemedicine practitioners and stringent guidelines have been published to stay compliant with the anti-kickback statute.[43]

As telemedicine becomes a more mainstream modality for delivery of healthcare, governments are working toward laws and policies to incorporate and normalize telemedicine. China's health authority issued rules regarding telemedicine in 2018 that included measures for the administration of internet-based diagnosis and treatment, internet hospitals and telemedicine.[44] In 2015, as part of its 20-year plan “2035 Health Care,” the Japanese government considered “the development of a health-care database to support telemedicine applications such as remote diagnosis, remote treatment, and telesurgery.”[45] The Government of India recently stipulated guidelines and criteria regarding practicing telemedicine where doctor's responsibilities in ensuring data privacy, ethics and maintaining records were highlighted.[46],[47] In the UK, remote health consultations are regulated by the Care Quality Commission and need approval before they can be commissioned.


   Special Considerations Top


Standardization

As stated above, ISO and HIPAA regulate the safety issues regarding telemedicine. In Crossing the Quality Chasm, the National Academy of Medicine (formally the Institute of Medicine) has defined six domains for the quality of care: Safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered.

Benefits of telemedicine include a reduction in the cost of health care and a focus on value-based care. Telemedicine also allows improved patient participation and engagement. Patient satisfaction and engagement are higher with fewer in person clinic visits, which also saves both the patient and the physician time. The clinician also feels more satisfied due to easy access and monitoring of patients. As an example, in high-risk pregnancies, remote monitoring devices and frequent telemedicine meetings lead to better outcomes, reduced visits, and better patient compliance.[48]

Each specialty using telemedicine should have their standardized safety plans on what can and cannot be handled on telemedicine platforms. It is important that physicians, while understanding the benefits, also understand the limitations of telemedicine where in-person visits are safer and warranted.

Liability issues

There are several liability issues surrounding telemedicine. In the US, licensing and state medical boards are a prerequisite for licensing where the physician is providing telemedicine. Practicing telemedicine across state lines is illegal. While there is an increasing rise in the number of physicians providing telemedicine, especially with the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic, insurance carriers have been inconsistent with coverage.[2] Medical liability remains a challenge. It is often not clear to the physician if their malpractice covers telemedicine visits. Telemedicine is a new platform of focused care that may leave room for litigation in terms of depth of evaluation. Recently, the American Heart Association has encouraged physicians to touch base with their institutions to make sure they are covered for telemedicine.[49] Conventionally, a separate form must be completed for physicians to be covered for telemedicine. This will encourage physicians to adopt new technology. Furthermore, efforts by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reimburse for telemedicine have also been positive in this direction.[49]

Digital divide

The limitations to the use of telemedicine include crossing the digital divide where not all patients have access to quality telemedicine equipment, broadband/internet, or good cameras. Similarly, patients with mental or physical disabilities will require necessary accommodations.[50] In addition, there may be issues with safeguarding clinical encounters where vulnerable patients may not have the privacy in their own homes to have an open conversation (i.e., abuse) and would benefit greatly from a face-to-face consultation.

Recommendations

Outline pathways

Each specialty needs to develop clearly defined clinical processes and procedures for evaluating patients while ensuring patient safety. This may include situations where home or community-based professionals are conducting face-to-face patient encounters under direction of a specialist through telemedicine or remote monitoring devices.

Data storage mandates

These will be required to secure the record of data collected, whether audio-visual recordings, written records, or shared picture files as part of the EHR. Storage and security protocols should be delineated to mirror in-hospital data security processes.

Administrative records

Usage of various available telemedicine platforms will require differential data process management. Administrative forms, payment data, consent forms, and other patient encounter forms will require an outlined process for completion and storage while still following confidentiality and data security procedures.

Reimbursement

Each specialty will be required to develop standard reimbursement rates to optimize billing procedures (i.e., first visit, follow-up visit, visual clinical examination, etc.) and should have predefined reimbursement rates.

Telemedicine metrics

Development of clinical metrics may allow for optimal use of technology in the betterment of patient care (i.e., door to balloon time in myocardial infarction).

Patient encounter records

Telemedicine encounter records allow the patient and physician to capture the encounter for follow-up visits. They enable better record keeping in case of potential review because of such limited encounters, by acting as a case file.

Physician-led

We recommend a revision of current laws to mandate that telemedicine be availed only by certified physicians. This is important, particularly as telemedicine is still in its nascent stage, to keep examination and management limitations in mind and patient safety at the forefront.


   Summary Top


This collaboration proposes a framework for telemedicine to establish national roots with an emphasis on standardization across systems to allow for quality patient care, data collection, and accurate reimbursements. While telemedicine has established its value during the COVID-19 pandemic more than ever before, there remains significant opportunity for growth in ensuring it is uniformly performed with standardized note templates, recordings, and coding that will allow for consistent reimbursement despite patient location. Telemedicine remains very vulnerable and is on the brink of being ground-breaking as the new approach to patient care or a questionable modality for health-care delivery that will cause every health system to re-imagine virtual visits. If set up correctly, telemedicine provides significant opportunity to patients and physicians alike. This collaboration attempts to elucidate four pillars needed for a systemically sound telemedicine system.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Hollander JE, Carr BG. Virtually Perfect? Telemedicine for Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1679-81.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Webster P. Virtual health care in the era of COVID-19. Lancet 2020;395:1180-1.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Nicola M, Alsafi Z, Sohrabi C, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, Iosifidis C, et al. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. Int J Surg 2020;78:185-93.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Organization W.H., WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. WHO; 2021. Available from: https://covid19.who.int/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jul 22].  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Coombs, B. Telehealth visits are booming as doctors and patients embrace distancing amid the coronavirus crisis; 4th April 2020. Available from: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/03/telehealth-visits-could-top-1-billion-in-2020-amid-the-coronavirus-crisis.html. [Last accessed on 2021 Jun 19].  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Mann DM, Chen J, Chunara R, Testa PA, Nov O. COVID-19 transforms health care through telemedicine: Evidence from the field. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020;27:1132-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Chauhan V, Galwankar S, Arquilla B, Garg M, Somma SD, El-Menyar A, et al. Novel coronavirus (COVID-19): Leveraging telemedicine to optimize care while minimizing exposures and viral transmission. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2020;13:20-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
  [Full text]  
8.
Krupinski EA, Antoniotti N, Bernard J. Utilization of the American Telemedicine Association's clinical practice guidelines. Telemed J E Health 2013;19:846-51.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Myers K, Nelson EL, Rabinowitz T, Hilty D, Baker D, Barnwell SS, et al. American telemedicine association practice guidelines for telemental health with children and adolescents. Telemed J E Health 2017;23:779-804.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
McKoy K, Antoniotti NM, Armstrong A, Bashshur R, Bernard J, Bernstein D, et al. Practice guidelines for teledermatology. Telemed J E Health 2016;22:981-90.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Cavallerano J, Lawrence MG, Zimmer-Galler I, Bauman W, Bursell S, Gardner WK, et al. Telehealth practice recommendations for diabetic retinopathy. Telemed J E Health 2004;10:469-82.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Demaerschalk BM, Berg J, Chong BW, Gross H, Nystrom K, Adeoye O, et al. American telemedicine association: Telestroke guidelines. Telemed J E Health 2017;23:376-89.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Richmond T, Peterson C, Cason J, Billings M, Terrell EA, Lee AC, et al. American telemedicine association's principles for delivering telerehabilitation services. Int J Telerehabil 2017;9:63-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Singh J, Badr MS, Diebert W, Epstein L, Hwang D, Karres V, et al. American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) position paper for the use of telemedicine for the diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders. J Clin Sleep Med 2015;11:1187-98.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Cross RK, Kane S. Integration of telemedicine into clinical gastroenterology and hepatology practice. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:175-81.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Monaghesh E, Hajizadeh A. The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: A systematic review based on current evidence. BMC Public Health 2020;20:1193.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Jaatinen PT, Forsstrom J, Loula P. Teleconsultations: Who uses them and how? J Telemed Telecare 2002;8:319-24.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Kuziemsky CE, Gogia SB, Househ M, Petersen C, Basu A. Balancing health information exchange and privacy governance from a patient-centred connected health and telehealth perspective. Yearb Med Inform 2018;27:48-54.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
M, Anwar, Joshi J, and Tan J. “Anytime, Anywhere Access to Secure, Privacy-Aware Healthcare Services: Issues, Approaches and Challenges.” Health Policy and Technology 4, no. 4 (2015): 299-311. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.08.007. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883715000659.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Patel PD, Cobb J, Wright D, Turer RW, Jordan T, Humphrey A, et al. Rapid development of telehealth capabilities within pediatric patient portal infrastructure for COVID-19 care: Barriers, solutions, results. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020;27:1116-20.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Watzlaf VJM, Zhou L, Dealmeida DR, Hartman LM. A systematic review of research studies examining telehealth privacy and security practices used by healthcare providers. Int J Telerehabil 2017;9:39-59.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Zhou L, Thieret R, Watzlaf V, Dealmeida D, Parmanto B. A telehealth privacy and security self-assessment questionnaire for telehealth providers: Development and validation. Int J Telerehabil 2019;11:3-14.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Yuan B, Li J. The policy effect of the general data protection regulation (GDPR) on the digital public health sector in the European Union: An empirical investigation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:1070.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Tully J, Coravos A, Doerr M, Dameff C. Connected medical technology and cybersecurity informed consent: A new paradigm. J Med Internet Res 2020;22:e17612.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Woods B, Coravos A, Corman JD. The case for a Hippocratic Oath for connected medical devices: Viewpoint. J Med Internet Res 2019;21:e12568.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
(OCR), O.f.C.R., Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications During the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency, U.S.D.o.H.H. Services, Editor. 2021; Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/: https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/emergency-preparedness/notification-enforcement-discretion-telehealth/index.html. [Last accessed on 2021 Jul 22].  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Moura P, Fazendeiro P, Inácio PRM, Vieira-Marques P, Ferreira A. Assessing access control risk for mhealth: A delphi study to categorize security of health data and provide risk assessment for mobile apps. J Healthc Eng 2020;2020:5601068.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Ozdalga E, Ozdalga A, Ahuja N. The smartphone in medicine: A review of current and potential use among physicians and students. J Med Internet Res 2012;14:e128.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
van Velsen L, Beaujean DJ, van Gemert-Pijnen JE. Why mobile health app overload drives us crazy, and how to restore the sanity. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13:23.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Plachkinova, Miloslava, Steven Andrâs, and S. Chatterjee. “A Taxonomy of Mhealth Apps -- Security and Privacy Concerns.” 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2015): 3187-96. DOI:10.1109/HICSS.2015.385 Publisher is IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Sim I. Mobile devices and health. New Engl J Med 2019;381:956-68.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Vega-Barbas M, Seoane F, Pau I. Characterization of user-centered security in telehealth services. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:693.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Sardesai I, Grover J, Garg M, Nanayakkara PW, Di Somma S, Paladino L, et al. Short term home oxygen therapy for COVID-19 patients: The COVID-HOT algorithm. J Family Med Prim Care 2020;9:3209-19.  Back to cited text no. 33
  [Full text]  
34.
Pappas Y, Vseteckova J, Mastellos N, Greenfield G, Randhawa G. Diagnosis and decision-making in telemedicine. J Patient Exp 2019;6:296-304.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:780-1.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Alexander GC, Tajanlangit M, Heyward J, Mansour O, Qato DM, Stafford RS. Use and content of primary care office-based vs. telemedicine care visits during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2021476.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Yeramosu D, Kwok F, Kahn JM, Ray KN. Validation of use of billing codes for identifying telemedicine encounters in administrative data. BMC Health Serv Res 2019;19:928.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
R, Bashshur, and Shannon G. “Telemedicine as a Modality of Healthcare Delivery and Its Implications.” In Encyclopedia of Cyber Behavior, 620-33. Hershey, PA: IGI Publications, 2012.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Changes Affecting Hospital and Critical Access Hospital Conditions of Participation: Telemedicine Credentialing and Privileging. https://www.federalregister.gov/: https://www.federalregister.gov/, 2011.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Lin JC, Kavousi Y, Sullivan B, Stevens C. Analysis of outpatient telemedicine reimbursement in an integrated healthcare system. Ann Vasc Surg 2020;65:100-6.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
G, Chittim, and Bomba J, “The Changing Fortunes of Telemedicine in Europe – Past, Present, and Future Beyond Covid-19,” Health Advances Blog. https://www.healthadvances.com/, 2020, https://healthadvancesblog.com/2020/05/06/the-changing-fortunes-of-telemedicine-in-europe/.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Fogel AL, Kvedar JC. Reported cases of medical malpractice in direct-to-consumer telemedicine. JAMA 2019;321:1309-10.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Stewart EE. OIG offers guidance on the legality of telemedicine arrangements. Healthc Financ Manage 2000;54:71-2.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Chen C, Balzano J. “China Expands Regulations on E-Healthcare Issues.” https://www.covingtondigitalhealth.com/, 2018, accessed 19/06/2021, https://www.covingtondigitalhealth.com/2018/10/china-expands-regulations-on-e-healthcare-issues/.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Consulting, H. Telemedicine in Japan. Available from: https://hashi.biz/telemedicine-in-japan/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jul 22].  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Chellaiyan VG, Nirupama AY, Taneja N. Telemedicine in India: Where do we stand? J Family Med Prim Care 2019;8:1872-6.  Back to cited text no. 46
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
47.
Council, I.M. Telemedicine Practice Guidelines, I.M. Council, Editor; 2020, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Available from: https://www.mohfw.gov.in/. [Last accessed on 2021 Jul 22].  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
van den Heuvel JF, Groenhof TK, Veerbeek JH, van Solinge WW, Lely AT, Franx A, et al. eHealth as the next-generation perinatal care: An overview of the literature. J Med Internet Res 2018;20:e202.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Schwamm LH, Chumbler N, Brown E, Fonarow GC, Berube D, Nystrom K, et al. Recommendations for the implementation of telehealth in cardiovascular and stroke Care: A policy statement from the american heart association. Circulation 2017;135:e24-44.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Giansanti D, Veltro G. The digital divide in the Era of COVID-19: An Investigation into an important obstacle to the access to the mHealth by the citizen. Healthcare (Basel) 2021;9:371.  Back to cited text no. 50
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Veronica Sikka
140 Fountain Parkway, Suite 600, St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jets.jets_105_21

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Pillar 1: Patien...
    Pillar 2: Metric...
    Pillar 3: Record...
    Pillar 4: Reimbu...
    Special Consider...
   Summary
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed388    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded8    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal