Telehealth and the diagnosis and management of cardiac disease

The financial and personal burden of chronic cardiac disease is high. Costs are likely to increase over the next few decades. Promising applications of telehealth have appeared in the diagnosis and management of cardiac disease and there are indications that telehealth services can improve the management of chronic cardiac disease as well as extend services to remote and rural populations. Telehealth has been applied to the capture of symptoms of cardiac disease with electrocardiography and echocardiography, to the management and rehabilitation of recently discharged patients, and in peer-to-peer consultation where remote expertise can facilitate diagnosis. Telehealth promises cost reductions in service delivery, although there is a need for properly controlled cost-effectiveness trials to underpin telehealth with a firm evidence base.

Minimum acceptable standards for digital compression of a fetal ultrasound video-clip

If the Internet could be used as a method of transmitting ultrasound images taken in the field quickly and effectively, it would bring tertiary consultation to even extremely remote centres. The aim of the study was to evaluate the maximum degree of compression of fetal ultrasound video-recordings that would not compromise signal quality. A digital fetal ultrasound videorecording of 90 s was produced, resulting in a file size of 512 MByte. The file was compressed to 2, 5 and 10 MByte. The recordings were viewed by a panel of four experienced observers who were blinded to the compression ratio used. Using a simple seven-point scoring system, the observers rated the quality of the clip on 17 items. The maximum compression ratio that was considered clinically acceptable was found to be 1:50-1:100. This produced final file sizes of 5-10 MByte, corresponding to a screen size of 320 x 240 pixels, running at 15 frames/s. This study expands the possibilities for providing tertiary perinatal services to the wider community.

Whither our Art? Clinical Wisdom & Evidence-based Medicine

The relationship between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical judgement is the subject of conceptual and practical dispute. For example, EBM and clinical guidelines are seen to increasingly dominate medical decision-making at the expense of other, human elements, and to threaten the art of medicine. Clinical wisdom always remains open to question. We want to know why particular beliefs are held, and the epistemological status of claims based in wisdom or experience. The paper critically appraises a number of claims and distinctions, and attempts to clarify the connections between EBM, clinical experience and judgement, and the objective and evaluative categories of medicine. I conclude that to demystify clinical wisdom is not to devalue it. EBM ought not be conceived as needing to be limited or balanced by clinical wisdom, since if its language is translatable into terms comprehensible and applicable to individuals, it helps constitute clinical wisdom. Failure to appreciate this constitutive relation will help perpetuate medical paternalism and delay the adoption of properly evidence-based practice, which would be both unethical and unwise.

Telemedicine for new neurological outpatients: putting a randomized controlled trial in the context of everyday practice

In a retrospective review, the telemedical management of 65 outpatients from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of telemedicine for non-urgent referrals to a consultant neurologist was compared with the management of 76 patients seen face to face in the same trial, with that of 150 outpatients seen in the neurology clinics of district general hospitals and with that of 102 neurological outpatients seen by general physicians. Outcome measures were the numbers of investigations and of patient reviews. The telemedicine group did not differ significantly from the 150 patients seen face to face by neurologists in hospital clinics in terms of either the number of investigations or the number of reviews they received. Patients from the RCT seen face to face had significantly fewer investigations but a similar number of reviews to the other 150 patients seen face to face by neurologists (the disparity in the number of investigations may explain the negative result for telemedicine in that RCT). Patients with neurological symptoms assessed by general physicians had significantly more investigations and were reviewed significantly more often than all the other groups. Patients from the RCT seen by telemedicine were not managed significantly differently from those seen face to face by neurologists in hospital clinics but had significantly fewer investigations and follow-ups than those patients managed by general physicians. The results suggest that management of new neurological outpatients by neurologists using telemedicine is similar to that by neurologists using a face-to-face consultation, and is more efficient than management by general physicians.

A review of guidelines and standards for telemedicine

We conducted a review to establish the range and scope of current telemedicine guidelines and standards. Published guidelines were identified by searching the Medline and Telemedicine Information Exchange (TIE) databases, and by performing a Google search using the term 'telemedicine guidelines'. Three types of guidelines were identified, namely clinical, operational and technical. Clinical guidelines included those for teleradiology, telepsychiatry, home telenursing, minor injuries telemedicine, surgical telemedicine, teledermatology and telepathology. Operational guidelines included those for email communication, Internet access and videoconferencing. Technical guidelines included those from the American Telemedicine Association and the US Office for the Advancement of Telehealth. The main standards relevant to telemedicine include those of the International Telecommunication Union and the DICOM standard. The scarcity of guidelines and standards suggests that telemedicine is not yet near to routine use. If an international telemedicine organization were to take responsibility for defining guidelines, under the direction of clinicians with appropriate telemedicine experience, this might speed up their development.

Randomized comparison of the quality of realtime fetal ultrasound images transmitted by ISDN and by IP videoconferencing

We compared the quality of realtime fetal ultrasound images transmitted using ISDN and IP networks. Four experienced obstetric ultrasound specialists viewed standard recordings in a randomized trial and rated the appearance of 30 fetal anatomical landmarks, each on a seven-point scale. A total of 12 evaluations were performed for various combinations of bandwidths (128, 384 or 768 kbit/s) and networks (ISDN or IF). The intraobserver coefficient of variation was 2.9%, 5.0%, 12.7% and 14.7% for the four observers. The mean overall ratings by each of the four observers were 4.6, 4.8, 5.0 and 5.3, respectively (a rating of 4 indicated satisfactory visualization and 7 indicated as good as the original recording). Analysis of variance showed that there were no significant interobserver variations nor significant differences in the mean scores for the different types of videoconferencing machines used. The most significant variable affecting the mean score was the bandwidth used. For ISDN, the mean score was 3.7 at 128 kbit/s, which was significantly worse than the mean score of 4.9 at 384 kbit/s, which was in turn significantly worse than the mean score of 5.9 at 768 kbit/s. The mean score for transmission using IP was about 0.5 points lower than that using ISDN across all the different bandwidths, but the differences were not significant. It appears that IP transmission in a private (non-shared) network is an acceptable alternative to ISDN for fetal tele-ultrasound and one deserving further study.

Development of a quality use of medicines coding system to rate clinical pharmacists' medication review recommendations

Objective: To develop a 'quality use of medicines' coding system for the assessment of pharmacists' medication reviews and to apply it to an appropriate cohort. Method: A 'quality use of medicines' coding system was developed based on findings in the literature. These codes were then applied to 216 (111 intervention, 105 control) veterans' medication profiles by an independent clinical pharmacist who was supported by a clinical pharmacologist with the aim to assess the appropriateness of pharmacy interventions. The profiles were provided for veterans participating in a randomised, controlled trial in private hospitals evaluating the effect of medication review and discharge counselling. The reliability of the coding was tested by two independent clinical pharmacists in a random sample of 23 veterans from the study population. Main outcome measure: Interrater reliability was assessed by applying Cohen's kappa score on aggregated codes. Results: The coding system based on the literature consisted of 19 codes. The results from the three clinical pharmacists suggested that the original coding system had two major problems: (a) a lack of discrimination for certain recommendations e. g. adverse drug reactions, toxicity and mortality may be seen as variations in degree of a single effect and (b) certain codes e. g. essential therapy were in low prevalence. The interrater reliability for an aggregation of all codes into positive, negative and clinically non-significant codes ranged from 0.49-0.58 (good to fair). The interrater reliability increased to 0.72-0.79 (excellent) when all negative codes were excluded. Analysis of the sample of 216 profiles showed that the most prevalent recommendations from the clinical pharmacists were a positive impact in reducing adverse responses (31.9%), an improvement in good clinical pharmacy practice (25.5%) and a positive impact in reducing drug toxicity (11.1%). Most medications were assigned the clinically non-significant code (96.6%). In fact, the interventions led to a statistically significant difference in pharmacist recommendations in the categories; adverse response, toxicity and good clinical pharmacy practice measured by the quality use of medicine coding system. Conclusion: It was possible to use the quality use of medicine coding system to rate the quality and potential health impact of pharmacists' medication reviews, and the system did pick up differences between intervention and control patients. The interrater reliability for the summarised coding system was fair, but a larger sample of medication regimens is needed to assess the non-summarised quality use of medicines coding system.