RESUMEN
This is an opinion article that aims to support the Disease caused by the New Coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19) post-pandemic regarding the regulation of care through digital resources. Through a literature review, an attempt was made to conceptualize remote consultation and to survey both the historical evolution of technological appropriation by health and the regulation on the subject. Texts covering the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods in Brazil, the United States, the European Union and Australia were evaluated. We tried to highlight the main fallacies, sophisms and dissensions that orbit the theme, as well as the real points where there is a need for greater commitment for decision makers: data security and privacy, reimbursement parity and interstate licensing. It is concluded that the technological appropriation by health has divided the world into at least three segments: those that maintained the autonomy of professionals and patients; those who retarded technological advancement through bureaucracy; and those who forbade advances. The pandemic has generated positive reallocations among these groups and there is a need to refine progress and avoid setbacks.
Este es un artículo de opinión que tiene como objetivo apoyar la discusión pospandémica de la Enfermedad causada por el Nuevo Coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) en cuanto a la regulación de la atención a través de recursos digitales. A través de una revisión de la literatura, se intentó conceptualizar la consulta remota y relevar tanto la evolución histórica de la apropiación tecnológica por parte de la salud como la regulación sobre el tema. Se evaluaron los textos que cubren los períodos prepandémico y pandémico en Brasil, Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y Australia. Intentamos resaltar las principales falacias, sofismas y disensiones que orbitan el tema, así como los puntos reales donde existe la necesidad de un mayor compromiso de los tomadores de decisiones: seguridad y privacidad de los datos, paridad de reembolso y licencias interestatales. Se concluye que la apropiación tecnológica por parte de la salud ha dividido al mundo en al menos tres segmentos: los que mantenían la autonomía de profesionales y pacientes; los que retrasaron el avance tecnológico a través de la burocracia; y los que prohibieron los avances. La pandemia ha generado reasignaciones positivas entre estos grupos y es necesario perfeccionar el progreso y evitar retrocesos.
Este é um artigo de opinião que objetiva subsidiar a discussão pós-pandemia da Doença causada pelo Novo Coronavírus de 2019 (COVID-19) a respeito da regulamentação do atendimento por meio de recursos digitais. Buscou-se, por meio de revisão de literatura, conceituar a consulta remota e fazer um levantamento tanto da evolução histórica da apropriação tecnológica pela saúde como da regulamentação sobre o tema. Foram avaliados textos cobrindo os períodos pré-pandêmico e pandêmico no Brasil, Estados Unidos, União Europeia e Austrália. Procurou-se evidenciar as principais falácias, sofismas e dissensos que orbitam o tema, bem como os reais pontos onde há necessidade de maior empenho para os tomadores de decisão: segurança de dados e privacidade, paridade de reembolso e licenciamento interestadual. Conclui-se que a apropriação tecnológica pela saúde dividiu o mundo em pelo menos três segmentos: os que mantiveram a autonomia de profissionais e pacientes; os que retardaram o avanço tecnológico por meio de burocracia; e os que proibiram os avanços. A pandemia gerou realocações positivas entre esses grupos e existe a necessidade de refinar avanços e evitar retrocessos.
RESUMEN
EstomatoNet was created in the south of Brazil to provides specialist support over a web-based platform to primary care dentists for diagnosis of oral lesions. To evaluate the usability of EstomatoNet and to identify user perceptions regarding their expectations and difficulties with the system; and to compare the perceptions of regular users of the service to those of first-time users. Sixteen dentists were selected for the study: 8 were frequent users of EstomatoNet and 8 were residents who had never used the Platform. To assess usability, participants were required to request telediagnosis support for a fictional case provided by the research team. During the process of uploading the information and sending the request, users were asked to "think out loud," expressing their perceptions. The session was observed by an examiner with remote access to the user's screen (via Skype). After the simulation, users completed the System Usability Scale (SyUS), a validated tool with scores ranging from 0 to 100. The mean SyUS score assigned by frequent users was 84.7±6.6, vs. 82.2±9.3 for residents (satisfactory usability: score above 68). The difference between the groups was not statistically significant (Student t test, P = .55). The residents group took longer (347.1±101.1s) to complete the task than frequent users (252.8±80.3s); however, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (Student t test, P = .06). In their subjective evaluation, users suggested the inclusion of a field to add further information on outcomes and resolution of the case and changes in the position of the "Send" button to improve workflow. The present results indicate satisfactory usability of EstomatoNet. The Platform seems to meet the needs of users regardless of how experienced they are; nevertheless, a few minor changes in some steps would improve the tool.
