A Scalable Framework for Telehealth: The Mayo Clinic Center for Connected Care Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The Mayo Clinic Center for Connected Care has an established organizational framework for telehealth care delivery. It provides patients, consumers, care teams, and referring providers access to clinical knowledge through technologies and integrated practice models. Central to the framework are teams that support product management and operational functions. They work together across the asynchronous, synchronous video telemedicine, remote patient monitoring (RPM), and mobile core service lines. Methods: The organizational framework of the Center for Connected Care and Mayo Clinic telehealth response to the COVID-19 pandemic is described. Barriers to telehealth delivery that were addressed by the public health emergency are also reported. This report was deemed exempt from full review by the Mayo Clinic IRB. Results: After declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was rapid growth in established telehealth offerings, including patient online services account creation, secure messaging, inpatient eConsults, express care online utilization, and video visits to home. Census for the RPM program for patients with chronic conditions remained stable; however, its framework was rapidly adapted to develop and implement a COVID-19 RPM service. In addition to this, other new telehealth and virtual care services were created to support the unique needs of patients with COVID-19 symptoms or disease and the health care workforce, including a digital COVID-19 self-assessment tool and video telemedicine solutions for ambulances, emergency departments, intensive care units, and designated medical-surgical units. Conclusion: Rapid growth, adoption, and sustainability of telehealth services through the COVID-19 pandemic were made possible by a scalable framework for telehealth and alignment of regulatory and reimbursement models.

Mobile Point-of-Care Medical Photography: Legal Considerations for Health Care Providers.

Medical photographs have been used for decades to document clinical findings. The ease with which medical photographs can be captured and integrated into the electronic health record (EHR) has increased as digital cameras obviated the need for the film development process. Today, cameras integrated into smartphones allow for high-resolution images to be instantly uploaded and integrated into the EHR. With major EHR vendors offering mobile smartphone applications for the conduct of point-of-care medical photography, health care providers and institutions need to be aware of legal questions that arise in the conduct of medical photography. Namely, (1) what are the requirements for consent when taking medical photographs, and how may photographs be used after consent is obtained, (2) are medical photographs admissible as evidence in court, and (3) how should a provider respond to a request by a patient or parent requesting that a photograph be deleted from the medical record? Herein, we review relevant laws and legal cases in the context of accepted standards of medical practice pertaining to point-of-care medical photography. This review is intended to aid health care providers and institutions seeking to develop or revise policies regarding using a mobile application at their clinical practice.

Medical Videography Using a Mobile App: Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: As mobile devices and apps grow in popularity, they are increasingly being used by health care providers to aid clinical care. At our institution, we developed and implemented a point-of-care clinical photography app that also permitted the capture of video recordings; however, the clinical findings it was used to capture and the outcomes that resulted following video recording were unclear. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess the use of a mobile clinical video recording app at our institution and its impact on clinical care. METHODS: A single reviewer retrospectively reviewed video recordings captured between April 2016 and July 2017, associated metadata, and patient records. RESULTS: We identified 362 video recordings that were eligible for inclusion. Most video recordings (54.1%; 190/351) were captured by attending physicians. Specialties recording a high number of video recordings included orthopedic surgery (33.7%; 122/362), neurology (21.3%; 77/362), and ophthalmology (15.2%; 55/362). Consent was clearly documented in the medical record in less than one-third (31.8%; 115/362) of the records. People other than the patient were incidentally captured in 29.6% (107/362) of video recordings. Although video recordings were infrequently referenced in notes corresponding to the clinical encounter (12.2%; 44/362), 7.7% (22/286) of patients were video recorded in subsequent clinical encounters, with 82% (18/22) of these corresponding to the same finding seen in the index video. Store-and-forward telemedicine was documented in clinical notes in only 2 cases (0.5%; 2/362). Videos appeared to be of acceptable quality for clinical purposes. CONCLUSIONS: Video recordings were captured in a variety of clinical settings. Documentation of consent was inconsistent, and other individuals were incidentally included in videos. Although clinical impact was not always clearly evident through retrospective review because of limited documentation, potential uses include documentation for future reference and store-and-forward telemedicine. Repeat video recordings of the same finding provide evidence of use to track the findings over time. Clinical video recordings have the potential to support clinical care; however, documentation of consent requires standardization.