OBJECTIVE: Telemedicine has the potential to improve the delivery of emergency medical care: however, the extent of its adoption in United States (US) emergency departments is not known. Our objective was to characterise the prevalence of telemedicine use among all US emergency departments, describe clinical applications for which it is most commonly used, and identify emergency department characteristics associated with its use. METHODS: As part of the National Emergency Department Inventory-USA survey, we queried all 5375 US emergency departments open in 2016. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified characteristics associated with emergency department receipt of telemedicine services. RESULTS: Overall, 4507 emergency departments (84%) responded to our survey, with 4031 responding to both telemedicine questions (75%). Although 1694 emergency departments (42%) reported no telemedicine in 2016, most did: 1923 (48%) emergency departments received telemedicine services, 149 (4%) emergency departments received telemedicine services and were in hospitals that provided telemedicine, and 265 emergency departments (7%) did not receive telemedicine but were in hospitals that provided telemedicine services. Among emergency departments receiving telemedicine, the most common applications were stroke/neurology (76%), psychiatry (38%), and paediatrics (15%). In multivariable analysis, telemedicine-receiving emergency departments had higher annual total visit volume for adults and lower annual total visit volume by children; were less likely to be academic or freestanding; and varied by region. In multivariable analysis, emergency departments in telemedicine-providing hospitals had higher annual total visit volume for adults and children, were more likely to be academic and were less likely to be freestanding. CONCLUSION: In 2016, telemedicine was used in most US emergency departments (58%), especially for stroke/neurology and psychiatry. Future research is needed to understand the value of telemedicine for different clinical applications, and the barriers to its implementation.
OBJECTIVE: Telemedicine has the potential to improve the delivery of emergency medical care: however, the extent of its adoption in United States (US) emergency departments is not known. Our objective was to characterise the prevalence of telemedicine use among all US emergency departments, describe clinical applications for which it is most commonly used, and identify emergency department characteristics associated with its use. METHODS: As part of the National Emergency Department Inventory-USA survey, we queried all 5375 US emergency departments open in 2016. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified characteristics associated with emergency department receipt of telemedicine services. RESULTS: Overall, 4507 emergency departments (84%) responded to our survey, with 4031 responding to both telemedicine questions (75%). Although 1694 emergency departments (42%) reported no telemedicine in 2016, most did: 1923 (48%) emergency departments received telemedicine services, 149 (4%) emergency departments received telemedicine services and were in hospitals that provided telemedicine, and 265 emergency departments (7%) did not receive telemedicine but were in hospitals that provided telemedicine services. Among emergency departments receiving telemedicine, the most common applications were stroke/neurology (76%), psychiatry (38%), and paediatrics (15%). In multivariable analysis, telemedicine-receiving emergency departments had higher annual total visit volume for adults and lower annual total visit volume by children; were less likely to be academic or freestanding; and varied by region. In multivariable analysis, emergency departments in telemedicine-providing hospitals had higher annual total visit volume for adults and children, were more likely to be academic and were less likely to be freestanding. CONCLUSION: In 2016, telemedicine was used in most US emergency departments (58%), especially for stroke/neurology and psychiatry. Future research is needed to understand the value of telemedicine for different clinical applications, and the barriers to its implementation.
Authors: Andrew D Wilcock; Kori S Zachrison; Lee H Schwamm; Lori Uscher-Pines; Jose R Zubizarreta; Ateev Mehrotra Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Jessica V Richard; Andrew D Wilcock; Lee H Schwamm; Lori Uscher-Pines; Kori S Zachrison; Arham Siddiqui; Ateev Mehrotra Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Richa Sharma; Kori S Zachrison; Anand Viswanathan; Marcelo Matiello; Juan Estrada; Christopher D Anderson; Mark Etherton; Scott Silverman; Natalia S Rost; Steven K Feske; Lee H Schwamm Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-03-04
Authors: Kori S Zachrison; Emily M Hayden; Krislyn M Boggs; Tehnaz P Boyle; Jingya Gao; Margaret E Samuels-Kalow; James P Marcin; Carlos A Camargo Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Mochamad Muska Nataliansyah; Kimberly A S Merchant; James A Croker; Xi Zhu; Nicholas M Mohr; James P Marcin; Hicham Rahmouni; Marcia M Ward Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-07-02 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Christopher L Bennett; Janice A Espinola; Ashley F Sullivan; Krislyn M Boggs; Carson E Clay; Moon O Lee; Margaret E Samuels-Kalow; Carlos A Camargo Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Ava L Liberman; Andrea R Lendaris; Natalie T Cheng; Nicole L Kaban; Sara K Rostanski; Charles Esenwa; Benjamin R Kummer; Daniel L Labovitz; Shyam Prabhakaran; Benjamin W Friedman Journal: Neurohospitalist Date: 2021-06-03
Authors: Michael P Goldman; Lindsey A Query; Ambrose H Wong; Isabel T Gross; Beth L Emerson; Marc A Auerbach; Gunjan K Tiyyagura Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 1.454