A Comparison of Methodologies from Two Longitudinal Community-Based Randomized Controlled Trials of Similar Interventions in Palliative Care: What Worked and What Did Not

Background: Methodological challenges such as recruitment problems and participant burden make clinical trials in palliative care difficult. In 2001-2004, two community-based randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of case conferences in palliative care settings were independently conducted in Australia-the Queensland Case Conferences trial (QCC) and the Palliative Care Trial (PCT). Design: A structured comparative study of the QCC and PCT was conducted, organized by known practical and organizational barriers to clinical trials in palliative care. Results: Differences in funding dictated study designs and recruitment success; PCT had 6 times the budget of QCC. Sample size attainment. Only PCT achieved the sample size goal. QCC focused on reducing attrition through gatekeeping while PCT maximized participation through detailed recruitment strategies and planned for significant attrition. Testing sustainable interventions. QCC achieved a higher percentage of planned case conferences; the QCC strategy required minimal extra work for clinicians while PCT superimposed conferences on normal work schedules. Minimizing participant burden. Differing strategies of data collection were implemented to reduce participant burden. QCC had short survey instruments. PCT incorporated all data collection into normal clinical nursing encounters. Other. Both studies had acceptable withdrawal rates. Intention-to-treat analyses are planned. Both studies included substudies to validate new outcome measures. Conclusions: Health service interventions in palliative care can be studied using RCTs. Detailed comparative information of strategies, successes and challenges can inform the design of future trials. Key lessons include adequate funding, recruitment focus, sustainable interventions, and mechanisms to minimize participant burden.

Telemedicine and developing countries - successful implementation will require a shared approach

Telemedicine is often proposed as a solution to certain health-care problems in the developing world. There seems to be little published experience on which to make judgements. A literature search revealed 39 articles, of which only two related to any kind of direct clinical work; most of them were review articles or editorials. The majority of the work reported was educational in nature, and there has been little clinical experience. It seems probable that telemedicine can help with the education of health-care workers and patients; it seems likely that it could bring major benefits to the organization of health-care. Without proper trials, it will be impossible to determine the place of health-care in the developing world. Trials are the only way in which rational decisions can ultimately be reached regarding whether scarce resources should be devoted to telemedicine in developing countries, or whether they should be employed in more conventional health-care measures whose outcomes are known to be cost-effective.

An analysis of why telehealth systems in Australia have not always succeeded

Telehealth programmes are rather similar to humans in the way that they are planned, develop, grow and ultimately die or disappear. To achieve good life expectancy for a telehealth programme there appear to be three major needs: nurturing, which includes the provision of money, ideas, education, training and innovation; experience, which involves an integrated management process, the achievement of long and wide patterns of usage, the development of updated policies and procedures and the involvement of multiple disciplines; success, which involves evidence of outcomes, evaluation and research, and, most important, the sharing of information through scientific and popular press publications, and conferences and collaborations with internal and external groups. The future of telehealth in Australia is at a watershed. There are now a substantial number of programmes, and there has been a large amount of financial and human investment in telehealth around the nation. There is, however, no forum for national leadership, no national association and little support at federal government level.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of and patient satisfaction with telemedicine for the follow-up of paediatric burns patients

Videoconferencing has become a routine technique for the post-acute burns care of children in Queensland. We compared the agreement between clinical assessments conducted via videoconference and assessments conducted in the conventional, face-to-face manner (FTF). A total of 35 children with a previous burn injury were studied. Twenty-five children received three consecutive assessments: first FTF by a consultant in the outpatient department, then by a second consultant who reviewed the patient via videoconference, and then by the second consultant in person. The second consultant also reviewed another 10 children twice. At each review, the following variables were measured: scar colour, scar thickening, contractures, range of motion, the patient's level of general activity, any breakdown of the graft site, and adequacy of the consultation. Agreement between the two consultants when seeing patients FTF was moderately high, with an overall concordance of 85%. When videoconferencing was used, the level of agreement was almost the same, at 84%. If one consultant reviewed patients FTF first and then via videoconference, the overall concordance was 98%; if the process was reversed, the overall concordance was 97%. This study confirms that the quality of information collected during a videoconference appointment is comparable to that collected during a traditional, FTF appointment for a follow-up burns consultation.