OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the potential and limits of school telemental health (TMH) to support a full continuum from mental health promotion to intervention, particularly for students less likely to access community care. METHODS: A review of school TMH literature and model programs, and of data from focus groups with child psychiatry fellows, was undertaken to inform best practices and future directions for TMH in schools. RESULTS: Existing data suggest that TMH with children and adolescents is promising and well received. Child and adolescent psychiatrists use various models for conducting school-based TMH, which differ in the level of direct care and types of services provided. Literature review and focus group data suggest that advantages of school TMH include greater efficiency, the capacity for higher volume, and increased access to care for many students who would be unlikely to reach traditional community mental healthcare because of barriers such as transportation and healthcare coverage. Disadvantages of school TMH service provision include patient concerns about their own privacy as well as concerns related to the psychiatrist's ability to effectively engage families in care without being present in person. Fellows also noted that the training experience of physically being in the school building and experiencing the school expectations and culture helps them move toward greater appreciation and understanding of the structures, policies, and opportunities and challenges for schools and school-based professionals. Most agreed that a "hybrid" model of care, with some in-person and some TMH care may be most beneficial to all parties, promoting both engagement and efficiency simultaneously. CONCLUSIONS: School TMH should be considered as part of a comprehensive service delivery system for students, in order to address shortages and gaps in specialty child and adolescent mental healthcare, and to maximize efficiency and productivity.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the potential and limits of school telemental health (TMH) to support a full continuum from mental health promotion to intervention, particularly for students less likely to access community care. METHODS: A review of school TMH literature and model programs, and of data from focus groups with child psychiatry fellows, was undertaken to inform best practices and future directions for TMH in schools. RESULTS: Existing data suggest that TMH with children and adolescents is promising and well received. Child and adolescent psychiatrists use various models for conducting school-based TMH, which differ in the level of direct care and types of services provided. Literature review and focus group data suggest that advantages of school TMH include greater efficiency, the capacity for higher volume, and increased access to care for many students who would be unlikely to reach traditional community mental healthcare because of barriers such as transportation and healthcare coverage. Disadvantages of school TMH service provision include patient concerns about their own privacy as well as concerns related to the psychiatrist's ability to effectively engage families in care without being present in person. Fellows also noted that the training experience of physically being in the school building and experiencing the school expectations and culture helps them move toward greater appreciation and understanding of the structures, policies, and opportunities and challenges for schools and school-based professionals. Most agreed that a "hybrid" model of care, with some in-person and some TMH care may be most beneficial to all parties, promoting both engagement and efficiency simultaneously. CONCLUSIONS: School TMH should be considered as part of a comprehensive service delivery system for students, in order to address shortages and gaps in specialty child and adolescent mental healthcare, and to maximize efficiency and productivity.