Katrin Arnold1, Madlen Scheibe2, Olaf Müller3, Jochen Schmitt4. 1. Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung (ZEGV), Universitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland; Carus Consilium Sachsen GmbH (CCS), Dresden, Deutschland. Electronic address: katrin.arnold@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung (ZEGV), Universitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland; Carus Consilium Sachsen GmbH (CCS), Dresden, Deutschland. 3. Carus Consilium Sachsen GmbH (CCS), Dresden, Deutschland. 4. Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung (ZEGV), Universitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The limited number of telemedicine applications being transferred to standard medical care in Germany may to some extent be explained by deficits in the current evaluation practice. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness can only be demonstrated to decision makers and potential users with methodologically sound and fully published evaluations. There is a lack of well-founded and mandatory standards for adequate, comparable evaluations of telemedicine applications. METHODS: As part of the project CCS Telehealth Eastern Saxony (CCS THOS), a systematic review on evaluation concepts for telemedicine applications (search period until September 2014, databases Medline, Embase, HTA-Database, DARE, NHS EED) as well as an additional selective literature search were conducted. Suggestions for evaluation fundamentals were derived from the results. These suggestions were subjected to a formal consensus process (nominal group process) with relevant stakeholder groups (healthcare payers, healthcare providers, health policy representatives, researchers). RESULTS: 19 papers were included in the systematic review. In accordance with the predefined inclusion criteria, each presented an evaluation concept for telemedicine applications that was based upon a systematic review and/or a consensus process. Via a formal consensus process, the suggestions for evaluation principles derived from the review and the selective literature search (23 papers) resulted in ten agreed evaluation principles. Eight of them were unanimously agreed upon, two were arrived at with one abstention each. The principles enclose criteria for the planning, conduct and reporting of telemedicine evaluations. Adherence to them is obligatory for users of the telemedical infrastructure provided by CCS THOS. Furthermore, right from the beginning the intention was very much for these principles to be seized upon by other projects and initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: The agreed evaluation principles for telemedicine applications are the first in Germany to be based both upon evidence and consensus. Due to the methodology of development, they have a strong scientific and health policy legitimation. Therefore, and because of their general applicability, adherence to these principles beyond the context of the telemedicine platform developed within CCS THOS is recommended, namely throughout the German telemedicine scene.
BACKGROUND: The limited number of telemedicine applications being transferred to standard medical care in Germany may to some extent be explained by deficits in the current evaluation practice. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness can only be demonstrated to decision makers and potential users with methodologically sound and fully published evaluations. There is a lack of well-founded and mandatory standards for adequate, comparable evaluations of telemedicine applications. METHODS: As part of the project CCS Telehealth Eastern Saxony (CCS THOS), a systematic review on evaluation concepts for telemedicine applications (search period until September 2014, databases Medline, Embase, HTA-Database, DARE, NHS EED) as well as an additional selective literature search were conducted. Suggestions for evaluation fundamentals were derived from the results. These suggestions were subjected to a formal consensus process (nominal group process) with relevant stakeholder groups (healthcare payers, healthcare providers, health policy representatives, researchers). RESULTS: 19 papers were included in the systematic review. In accordance with the predefined inclusion criteria, each presented an evaluation concept for telemedicine applications that was based upon a systematic review and/or a consensus process. Via a formal consensus process, the suggestions for evaluation principles derived from the review and the selective literature search (23 papers) resulted in ten agreed evaluation principles. Eight of them were unanimously agreed upon, two were arrived at with one abstention each. The principles enclose criteria for the planning, conduct and reporting of telemedicine evaluations. Adherence to them is obligatory for users of the telemedical infrastructure provided by CCS THOS. Furthermore, right from the beginning the intention was very much for these principles to be seized upon by other projects and initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: The agreed evaluation principles for telemedicine applications are the first in Germany to be based both upon evidence and consensus. Due to the methodology of development, they have a strong scientific and health policy legitimation. Therefore, and because of their general applicability, adherence to these principles beyond the context of the telemedicine platform developed within CCS THOS is recommended, namely throughout the German telemedicine scene.