Effectiveness of Telehealth in Rural and Remote Emergency Departments: Systematic Review

J Med Internet Res. 2021 Nov 26;23(11):e30632. doi: 10.2196/30632.

Abstract

Background: Emergency telehealth has been used to improve access of patients residing in rural and remote areas to specialist care in the hope of mitigating the significant health disparities that they experience. Patient disposition decisions in rural and remote emergency departments (EDs) can be complex and largely dependent on the expertise and experience available at local (receiving-end) hospitals. Although there has been some synthesis of evidence of the effectiveness of emergency telehealth in clinical practice in rural and remote EDs for nonacute presentations, there has been limited evaluation of the influence of contextual factors such as clinical area and acuity of presentation on these findings.

Objective: The aims of this systematic review are to examine the outcome measures used in studying the effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote EDs and to analyze the clinical context in which these outcome measures were used and interpreted.

Methods: The search strategy used Medical Subject Headings and equivalent lists of subject descriptors to find articles covering 4 key domains: telehealth or telemedicine, EDs, effectiveness, and rural and remote. Studies were selected using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes of Interest, and Study Design framework. This search strategy was applied to MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, ProQuest, and EconLit, as well as the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases (eg, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database) for the search period from January 1, 1990, to May 23, 2020. Qualitative synthesis was performed on the outcome measures used in the included studies, in particular the clinical contexts within which they were interpreted.

Results: A total of 21 full-text articles were included for qualitative analysis. Telehealth use in rural and remote EDs demonstrated effectiveness in achieving improved or equivalent clinical effectiveness, appropriate care processes, and-depending on the context-improvement in speed of care, as well as favorable service use patterns. The definition of effectiveness varied across the clinical areas and contexts of the studies, and different measures have been used to affirm the safety and clinical effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote EDs. The acuity of patient presentation emerged as a dominant consideration in the interpretation of interlinking time-sensitive clinical effectiveness and patient disposition measures such as transfer and discharge rates, local hospital admission, length of stay, and ED length of stay. These, together with clinical area and acuity of presentation, are the outcome determination criteria that emerged from this review.

Conclusions: Emergency telehealth studies typically use multiple outcome measures to determine the effectiveness of the services. The outcome determination criteria that emerged from this analysis are useful when defining the favorable direction for each outcome measure of interest. The findings of this review have implications for emergency telehealth service design and policies.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42019145903; https://tinyurl.com/ndmkr8ry.

Keywords: clinical effectiveness; remote; rural health; rural population; telehealth; telemedicine; treatment outcome.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Emergency Service, Hospital
  • Humans
  • Rural Population
  • State Medicine
  • Telemedicine*
  • Text Messaging*