OBJECTIVE: To assess the attitudes of referring and consulting pathologists toward a recently initiated live video telepathology network in rural Vermont. METHODS: A semistructured interview was conducted with each referring pathologist before implementation of the telepathology program and again 9 months later. The interview consisted of questions concerning reasons for seeking a consultation in general and attitudes toward telepathology specifically. A questionnaire with Likert-type response categories was administered at the 9-month timepoint to the referring (N = 4) and consulting (N = 10) pathologists. This questionnaire contained items regarding communication, cost, education, quality, and timeliness aspects of telepathology. In addition, a brief mail survey was sent to attending physicians who utilized pathology services at the rural hospitals. RESULTS: The referring pathologists found the timeliness of consults using telemedicine to be a significant advantage. They also cited educational benefits both from attending telepathology conferences and from the interactive nature of the consultations. Two areas of concern were difficulties in minimizing scheduling inconveniences and uncertainty about the financial sustainability of the network. Overall, the telepathology system was well received by the consulting pathologists. Recurrent technical difficulties with the system were mentioned as a problem area. CONCLUSION: The pathologists participating in the Vermont telepathology network have reported benefiting from using this technology. Whether these benefits will outweight the costs of using telepathology for routine consultations remains to be determined.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the attitudes of referring and consulting pathologists toward a recently initiated live video telepathology network in rural Vermont. METHODS: A semistructured interview was conducted with each referring pathologist before implementation of the telepathology program and again 9 months later. The interview consisted of questions concerning reasons for seeking a consultation in general and attitudes toward telepathology specifically. A questionnaire with Likert-type response categories was administered at the 9-month timepoint to the referring (N = 4) and consulting (N = 10) pathologists. This questionnaire contained items regarding communication, cost, education, quality, and timeliness aspects of telepathology. In addition, a brief mail survey was sent to attending physicians who utilized pathology services at the rural hospitals. RESULTS: The referring pathologists found the timeliness of consults using telemedicine to be a significant advantage. They also cited educational benefits both from attending telepathology conferences and from the interactive nature of the consultations. Two areas of concern were difficulties in minimizing scheduling inconveniences and uncertainty about the financial sustainability of the network. Overall, the telepathology system was well received by the consulting pathologists. Recurrent technical difficulties with the system were mentioned as a problem area. CONCLUSION: The pathologists participating in the Vermont telepathology network have reported benefiting from using this technology. Whether these benefits will outweight the costs of using telepathology for routine consultations remains to be determined.