O Adeogun1, A Tiwari, J R Alcock. 1. School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK. o.adeogun@cranfield.ac.uk
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the paper was to identify the models of information exchange for UK telehealth systems. METHODOLOGY: Twelve telehealth offerings were evaluated and models representing the information exchange routes were constructed. Questionnaires were used to validate the diagrammatical representations of the models with a response rate of 55%. RESULTS: The models were classified as possessing four sections: preparing for data transfer, data transfer, information generation and information transfer from health professional to patient. In preparing for data transfer, basic data entry was automated in most systems though additional inputs (i.e. information about diet, lifestyle and medication) could be entered before the data was sent into the telehealth system. For the data transfer aspect, results and additional inputs were sent to intermediate devices, which were connectors between point-of-care devices, patients and health professionals. Data were then forwarded to either a web portal, a remote database or a monitoring/call centre. Information generation was either through computational methods or through the expertise of health professionals. Information transfer to the patient occurred in four forms: email, telehealth monitor message, text message or phone call. CONCLUSION: On comparing the models, three generic models were outlined. Five different forms of information exchange between users of the system were identified: patient-push, system-stimulation, dialogue, health professional-pull and observation. Patient-push and health professional-pull are the dominant themes from the telehealth offerings evaluated. 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
AIM: The aim of the paper was to identify the models of information exchange for UK telehealth systems. METHODOLOGY: Twelve telehealth offerings were evaluated and models representing the information exchange routes were constructed. Questionnaires were used to validate the diagrammatical representations of the models with a response rate of 55%. RESULTS: The models were classified as possessing four sections: preparing for data transfer, data transfer, information generation and information transfer from health professional to patient. In preparing for data transfer, basic data entry was automated in most systems though additional inputs (i.e. information about diet, lifestyle and medication) could be entered before the data was sent into the telehealth system. For the data transfer aspect, results and additional inputs were sent to intermediate devices, which were connectors between point-of-care devices, patients and health professionals. Data were then forwarded to either a web portal, a remote database or a monitoring/call centre. Information generation was either through computational methods or through the expertise of health professionals. Information transfer to the patient occurred in four forms: email, telehealth monitor message, text message or phone call. CONCLUSION: On comparing the models, three generic models were outlined. Five different forms of information exchange between users of the system were identified: patient-push, system-stimulation, dialogue, health professional-pull and observation. Patient-push and health professional-pull are the dominant themes from the telehealth offerings evaluated. 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.