OBJECTIVE: To determine the current practice and plans for telemedicine at leading US neurology departments. DESIGN AND SETTING: An electronic survey was sent to department chairs, administrators, or faculty involved in telemedicine at 47 neurology departments representing the top 50 hospitals as ranked by U.S. News and World Report. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current use, size, scope, reimbursement, and perceived quality of telemedicine services. RESULTS: A total of 32 individuals from 30 departments responded (64% response rate). The primary respondents were neurology faculty (66%) and department chairs (22%). Of the responding departments, 60% (18 of 30) currently provide telemedicine and most (n = 12) had initiated services within the last 2 years. Two thirds of those not providing telemedicine plan to do so within a year. Departments provide services to patients in state, out of state, and internationally, but only 6 departments had more than 50 consultations in the last year. The principal applications were stroke (n = 14), movement disorders (n = 4), and neurocritical care (n = 3). Most departments (n = 12) received external funding for telemedicine services, but few departments (n = 3) received payment from insurers (eg, Medicare, Medicaid). Reimbursement (n = 21) was the most frequently identified barrier to implementing telemedicine services. The majority of respondents (n = 20) find telemedicine to be equivalent to in-person care. CONCLUSIONS: Over 85% of leading US neurology departments currently use or plan to implement telemedicine within the next year. Addressing reimbursement may allow for its broader application.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the current practice and plans for telemedicine at leading US neurology departments. DESIGN AND SETTING: An electronic survey was sent to department chairs, administrators, or faculty involved in telemedicine at 47 neurology departments representing the top 50 hospitals as ranked by U.S. News and World Report. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current use, size, scope, reimbursement, and perceived quality of telemedicine services. RESULTS: A total of 32 individuals from 30 departments responded (64% response rate). The primary respondents were neurology faculty (66%) and department chairs (22%). Of the responding departments, 60% (18 of 30) currently provide telemedicine and most (n = 12) had initiated services within the last 2 years. Two thirds of those not providing telemedicine plan to do so within a year. Departments provide services to patients in state, out of state, and internationally, but only 6 departments had more than 50 consultations in the last year. The principal applications were stroke (n = 14), movement disorders (n = 4), and neurocritical care (n = 3). Most departments (n = 12) received external funding for telemedicine services, but few departments (n = 3) received payment from insurers (eg, Medicare, Medicaid). Reimbursement (n = 21) was the most frequently identified barrier to implementing telemedicine services. The majority of respondents (n = 20) find telemedicine to be equivalent to in-person care. CONCLUSIONS: Over 85% of leading US neurology departments currently use or plan to implement telemedicine within the next year. Addressing reimbursement may allow for its broader application.
Authors: E Ray Dorsey; Lisa M Deuel; Tiffini S Voss; Kara Finnigan; Benjamin P George; Sheelah Eason; David Miller; Jason I Reminick; Anna Appler; Joyce Polanowicz; Lucy Viti; Sandy Smith; Anthony Joseph; Kevin M Biglan Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2010-08-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: B C Meyer; P D Lyden; L Al-Khoury; Y Cheng; R Raman; R Fellman; J Beer; R Rao; J A Zivin Journal: Neurology Date: 2005-03-22 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David C Hess; Samuel Wang; William Hamilton; Sung Lee; Carol Pardue; Jennifer L Waller; Hartmut Gross; Fenwick Nichols; Christiana Hall; Robert J Adams Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-07-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Lee H Schwamm; Eric S Rosenthal; Alan Hirshberg; Pamela W Schaefer; Elizabeth A Little; Joseph C Kvedar; Iva Petkovska; Walter J Koroshetz; Steven R Levine Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Bart M Demaerschalk; Madeline L Miley; Terri-Ellen J Kiernan; Bentley J Bobrow; Doren A Corday; Kay E Wellik; Maria I Aguilar; Timothy J Ingall; David W Dodick; Karina Brazdys; Tiffany C Koch; Michael P Ward; Phillip C Richemont Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2009 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Ryan E Korn; Aparna Wagle Shukla; Maya Katz; H Tait Keenan; Steven Goldenthal; Peggy Auinger; William Zhu; Michael Dodge; Kyle Rizer; Meredith A Achey; Erica Byrd; Richard Barbano; Irene Richard; Kelly L Andrzejewski; Heidi B Schwarz; E Ray Dorsey; Kevin M Biglan; Gail Kang; Sulada Kanchana; Ramon Rodriguez; Caroline M Tanner; Nicholas B Galifianakis Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2017-08
Authors: Samantha M R Kling; Jessica J Falco-Walter; Erika A Saliba-Gustafsson; Donn W Garvert; Cati G Brown-Johnson; Rebecca Miller-Kuhlmann; Jonathan G Shaw; Steven M Asch; Laurice Yang; Carl A Gold; Marcy Winget Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2021-12
Authors: Lindsay Ross; James Bena; Robert Bermel; Lauren McCarter; Zubair Ahmed; Harold Goforth; Neil Cherian; Jennifer Kriegler; Emad Estemalik; Matthew Stanton; Peter Rasmussen; Hubert H Fernandez; Imad Najm; Marisa McGinley Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Justin R Abbatemarco; Jennifer Hartman; Marisa McGinley; Robert A Bermel; Adrienne Boissy; Desiree T Chizmadia; Amy B Sullivan; Mary R Rensel Journal: J Patient Exp Date: 2021-01-12