1 / 18

Telehealthcare: Integrating service development and evaluation

Telehealthcare: Integrating service development and evaluation. Tracy Finch, Carl May, Frances Mair, Maggie Mort, Linda Gask Universities of Newcastle, Liverpool, Lancaster and Manchester Study funded by the Department of Health (Policy Research Programme, ICT 032)

janine
Download Presentation

Telehealthcare: Integrating service development and evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Telehealthcare: Integrating service development and evaluation Tracy Finch, Carl May, Frances Mair, Maggie Mort, Linda Gask Universities of Newcastle, Liverpool, Lancaster and Manchester Study funded by the Department of Health (Policy Research Programme, ICT 032) Current support from Economic & Social Research Council

  2. Let’s start with a statement…. Telehealthcare systems consistently fail to become part of normal practice!

  3. And now a question…. How might evaluation help implementation?

  4. Evaluation is important…. • Evidence is necessary to support its practice • Over-emphasis on methodology - but does it work in practice? • So….?

  5. Methods • Seven telehealth projects • Combination of qualitative methods • Various study designs • Various levels of success • Transcripts = 97

  6. Constructing outcome measures

  7. Constructing outcome measures TM2/S1clinical lead1-(3): Trying to evaluate a [name] service as an outcome measure is very difficult, because we don’t have very many, particularly for the majority of conditions that we look at, [names]. For cancer you can do because you look at the recurrence rates and all the rest of it but [names] there aren’t cures for it so you’re looking at things that are much softer as far as outcome, mainly around issues involving quality of life and patient satisfaction.

  8. Service provision conflicts with evaluation

  9. Service provision conflicts with evaluation TM2/S4-lead clinician1-(3): Partly, but I think the GPs say that there are two things that have added to their burden and they find it difficult to say which is worse, one is the actual telemedicine and the other is the research bit, including the ethics bit […] The telemedicine has added to their work but it would have been easier if they’d just been implementing a telemedicine project, I can actually see that if you can produce a telemedicine project that makes GP’s lives easier they’ll like it, but nobody will ever learn anything about it.

  10. Managing Risk

  11. Managing Risk TM2/S3-lead clinician1: We will be monitoring how often [they default to standard care], but they’re allowed to do that so I don’t think safety will be an issue. But the issue of safety is something we’ve taken extremely seriously and that’s just to do with the lack of knowledge about the legal status of telemedicine. So we’ll be erring on the side of being over-cautious in terms of how our protocol is set up because we definitely don’t want to ever be putting a patient at risk at all, in any shape or form.

  12. Recruitment & validity

  13. Recruitment & validity TM2/S6-research nurse1-(1): Really in the last two months or so I’d say that recruitment has slipped certainly at our site because the winter months tend to generate more patients (with condition x) and what I’m finding though is that they’re either end stage ……… and they’re just too sick, there’s no way that they could manage with equipment at home, they’re more respite care really. All the patients have just said no, they just don’t want anything to do with it…….”

  14. Attributing effects

  15. Attributing effects TM2/S4-research associate1-(3): I think what it's not brought out or we can’t conclusively draw out is whether it has been the trial and all the problems with the trial or whether it’s the telemedicine per se and I think that’s a big problem and that’s what I’m having to write up, that we’re not quite sure.

  16. Different types of ‘knowledge’

  17. Different types of ‘knowledge’ Interviewer: It sounds like you’re saying that you feel that the research won’t necessarily tell you the answers you want in terms of is this useful? TM2/S7-clinician2-(1): No, no, I think it will. I think it’s the other way round. I think it probably won’t tell me ‘yes it’s useful’, but hopefully it will tell me it’s not dangerous. So it won’t be able to demonstrate that it’s useful, that will be up to me to say whether it’s useful or not, but it should be able to tell me that I’m not putting patients at risk. Interviewer: And how will you judge whether it’s useful? TM2/S7-clinician2-(1): By seeing how positive we feel about using it, because if it really is an effort to use it then it will turn out to be not useful, because it won’t get used.

  18. Conclusions • Processes rather than outcomes • Social and organisational – not just clinical or technical • Pragmatic and flexible approaches to evaluation

More Related