Editoral : Correspondence regarding Anker SD, Koehler F, Abraham WT. Telemedicine and remote management of patients with heart failure. The Lancet 2011; 378: 731–39. Published 20 August 2011.

We read the excellent review of telemonitoring in chronic heart failure (CHF)1 with interest and commend the authors on the proposed classification of telemedical remote management systems according to the type of data transfer, decision ability and level of integration. However, several points require clarification in relation to our Cochrane review of telemonitoring and structured telephone support2. We included a study by Kielblock3. We corresponded directly with this study team specifically to find out whether or not this was a randomised study and were informed that it was a randomised trial, albeit by date of birth. We note in our review2 that this randomisation method carries a high risk of bias. Post-hoc metaanalyses without these data demonstrate no substantial change to the effect estimates for all cause mortality (original risk ratio (RR) 0·66 [95% CI 0·54, 0·81], p<0·0001; revised RR 0·72 [95% CI 0·57, 0·92], p=0·008), all-cause hospitalisation (original RR 0·91 [95% CI 0·84, 0·99] p=0·02; revised RR 0.92 [95% CI 0·84, 1·02], p=0·10 ) or CHF-related hospitalisation (original RR 0·79 [95% CI 0·67, 0·94] p=0·008; revised RR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60, 0·94] p=0·01). Secondly, we would classify the Tele-HF study4, 5 as structured telephone support, rather than telemonitoring. Again, inclusion of these data alters the point-estimate but not the overall result of the meta-analyses4. Finally, our review2 does not include invasive telemonitoring as the search strategy was not designed to capture these studies. Therefore direct comparison of our review findings with recent studies of these interventions is not recommended.

A systematic review of telemedicine services for residents in long term care facilities

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on telemedicine use in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and assessed the quality of the published evidence. A database search identified 22 papers which met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies was assessed and if they contained economic data, they were rated according to standard criteria. The clinical services provided by telemedicine included allied health (n = 5), dermatology (3), general practice (4), neurology (2), geriatrics (1), psychiatry (4) and multiple specialities (3). Most studies (17) employed real-time telemedicine using videoconferencing. The remaining five used store and forward telemedicine. The papers focused on economics (3), feasibility (9), stakeholder satisfaction (12), reliability (5) and service implementation (2). Overall, the quality of evidence for telemedicine in LTCFs was low. There was only one small randomised controlled trial (RCT). Most studies were observational and qualitative, and focused on utilisation. They were mainly based on surveys and interviews of stakeholders. A few studies evaluated the cost associated with implementing telemedicine services in LTCFs. The present review shows that there is evidence for feasibility and stakeholder satisfaction in using telemedicine in LTCFs in a number of clinical specialities.

Innovative telemedicine and mobile phone technology in the management of diabetic foot ulcers

Background Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are a leading cause of diabetes-related hospitalisation and can be costly to manage without access to appropriate expert care. Within Queensland and indeed across many parts of Australia, there is an inequality in accessing specialist services for individuals with DFU. Recent National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) diabetic foot guidelines recommend remote expert consultation with digital imaging should be made available to people with DFU to improve their clinical outcomes. Telemedicine appears to show promise in improving access to diabetic foot specialist services; however diabetic foot telemedicine models to date have relied upon videoconferencing, store and forward technology and/or customised appliances to obtain digital imagery which all require either expensive infrastructure or a timed reply to the request for advice. Whilst mobile phone advice services have been used with success in general diabetes management and telehealth services have improved diabetic foot outcomes, the rapid emergence in the use of mobile phones has established a need to review the role that various forms of telemedicine play in the management of DFU. The aim of this paper is to review traditional telemedicine modalities that have been used in the management of DFU and to compare that to new and innovative technology that are emerging. Process Studies investigating the management of DFU using various forms of telemedicine interventions will be included in this review. They include the use of videoconferencing technology, hand held digital still photography purpose built imaging devices and mobile phone imagery. Electronic databases (Pubmed, Medline and CINAHL) will be searched using broad MeSH terms and keywords that cover the intended area of interest. Findings It is anticipated that the results of this narrative review will provide delegates of the 2015 Australasian Podiatry Conference an insight into the types of emerging innovative diagnostic telemedicine technologies in the management of DFU against the backdrop of traditional and evidence based modalities. It is anticipated that the findings will drive further research in the area of mobile phone imagery and innovation in the management of DFU.

A web-based telemedicine system for low-resource settings 13 years on: insights from referrers and specialists

Background: One way to tackle health inequalities in resource-poor settings is to establish links between doctors and health professionals there and specialists elsewhere using web-based telemedicine. One such system run by the Swinfen Charitable Trust has been in existence for 13 years which is an unusually long time for such systems.

Objective: We wanted to gain some insights into whether and how this system might be improved.

Methods: We carried out a survey by questionnaire of referrers and specialists over a six months period.

Results: During the study period, a total of 111 cases were referred from 35 different practitioners, of whom 24% were not doctors. Survey replies were received concerning 67 cases, a response rate of 61 per cent. Eighty-seven per cent of the responding referrers found the telemedicine advice useful, and 78% were able to follow the advice provided. As a result of the advice received, the diagnosis was changed in 22% of all cases and confirmed in a further 18 per cent. Patient management was changed in 33 per cent. There was no substantial difference between doctors and non-doctors. During the study period, the 111 cases were responded to by 148 specialists, from whom 108 replies to the questionnaire were received, a response rate of 73 per cent. About half of the specialists (47%) felt that their advice had improved the management of the patients. There were 62 cases where it was possible to match up the opinions of the referrer and the consultants about the value of a specific teleconsultation. In 34 cases (55%) the referrers and specialists agreed about the value. However, in 28 cases (45%) they did not: specialists markedly underestimated the value of a consultation compared to referrers. Both referrers and specialist were extremely positive about the system which appears to be working well. Minor changes such as a clearer referral template and an improved web interface for specialists may improve it.