Differences in diagnosis and treatment using telemedicine versus in-person evaluation of acute illness.

OBJECTIVE: We designed a telemedicine model for diagnosis of common, acute illness to compare telemedicine and in-person evaluations on reproducibility of diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: Subjects were seen by usual physicians in ambulatory settings. Subjects were also evaluated separately by experienced general pediatricians (study physicians), either in person or via telemedicine, based on random assignment. The primary measure of reproducibility was study physician agreement with usual physician on primary diagnosis. Analysis compared reproducibility for telemedicine versus in-person evaluations. Relevance of agreement on primary diagnosis was measured by comparing agreement on prescribed medications. RESULTS: Agreement on diagnosis of study physicians with usual physicians for the 492 visits studied was 89%. The difference in the proportion of visits with disagreements between telemedicine study and in-person study evaluations (13.8% vs 8.3%, respectively) bordered on significance (P = .051). Disagreement proportions for prescriptions were similar (32.2% vs 27.4%), however. Telemedicine evaluation for children with upper respiratory tract (URI)-ear symptoms involved unique technical requirements and clinical judgments. For this largest subgroup of 202 visits, disagreement on diagnosis for telemedicine occurred more often than for in-person evaluation (17.6 vs 6.3%, P < .02). For the remaining 290 visits, telemedicine and in-person study physicians disagreed on diagnosis about equally (11.5 vs 9.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Excluding the URI-ear group, reproducibility of telemedicine diagnosis did not differ from that of in-person diagnosis. For the URI-ear group, reproducibility of diagnosis by telemedicine and in-person evaluation varied significantly.

Effectiveness of telemedicine in replacing in-person evaluation for acute childhood illness in office settings.

For the purpose of reducing the social and economic burden imposed by common acute childhood illness, we developed a telemedicine model to enable diagnosis and treatment of illness episodes presenting in pediatric office settings. The study objective was to assess the effectiveness of this telemedicine model in replacing illness visits to traditional healthcare settings and to compare effectiveness of this model (base model) with that of alternative models including simple office laboratory tests and albuterol administration (simple model) or a complete complement of tests and procedures (extended model). Eligible subjects had an acute problem and were seen in the pediatric primary care practice or pediatric emergency department of the University of Rochester Medical Center. All subjects were seen by the setting's usual physician. Subjects were also evaluated, based on random assignment, by a study physician in person or by a study physician via telemedicine. Effectiveness was defined as completion of the visit to the point that diagnosis was made. Forms completed by study physicians, and standard medical records indicating the tests and procedures requested for the purpose of completing the visit, were used to identify the model used in completing the visit. Effectiveness (proportion of visits completed) of the base model was assessed and its effectiveness was compared to that of simple and extended telemedicine models. Among 520 randomized visits, 492 were evaluated by study physicians in person (253) or via telemedicine (239). Using the base model, study physicians completed 74.1% of visits via telemedicine compared to 76.7% for study physicians in person and 76.0% for usual physicians. The simple model increased completion rates substantially. Using this model, study physicians completed 84.9% of visits via telemedicine compared to 86.6% for study physicians in person and 85.2% for usual physicians. The extended model increased effectiveness in completing visits still more, with telemedicine study physicians completing 97.1% of visits compared to 96.8% for in-person study physicians and 100% for usual physicians. Approximately 85% of illness visits presenting to primary care pediatric practice could be completed using a telemedicine model that included only simple office laboratory testing and albuterol administration.

Is care in alternative settings safe for infants with possible serious bacterial infection?

Febrile infants are frequently hospitalized for possible serious bacterial illness (SBI). Potential to replace hospitalization of selected febrile infants with care in alternative settings was assessed by estimating risk for deterioration and by determining resource use. Lower and upper bound estimates for the number of infants admitted to a tertiary care hospital from 1994 to 1998 for possible SBI were 537 and 836, respectively. Detailed record reviews were conducted for febrile infants among this group, who, on the basis of positive blood or cerebrospinal cultures, were considered most likely to have SBI. No infant with a positive blood culture who was eligible for alternative setting care (ASC) deteriorated. Ninety-five percent confidence interval for the worst-case (assuming denominator of 537) estimate of risk for deterioration was 0% to 0.56%. Most resource use was compatible with ASC. Alternative setting care for selected febrile infants is both safe and feasible.