Peris Castaneda1, Chad Ellimoottil2. 1. University of Michigan Medical School, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Bldg 16, 1st Floor, Room 152S, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. pcastane@med.umich.edu. 2. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Applications of telehealth have been growing in popularity. However, there is little information on how telehealth is being used in Urology. In this review, we examine current applications of telehealth in urological practices as well as barriers to implementation. METHODS: A review was conducted of original research within the past 10 years describing telehealth applications in urology. Articles on telehealth as applied to other specialties were reviewed for discussion on real or perceived barriers to implementation. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common application of telehealth was using a video visit to assess or follow-up with patients. The second most commonly described applications of telehealth were telementorship, or the use of telehealth technology to help train providers, and telemedicine used in diagnostics. Studies consistently stated the effectiveness of the telehealth applications and the high level of patient and provider satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth is sparingly used in urology. Barriers to implementation include technological literacy, reimbursement uncertainties, and resistance to change in workflow. When used, telehealth technologies are shown to be safe, effective, and satisfactory for patients and providers. Further investigation is necessary to determine the efficacy of telehealth applications.
PURPOSE: Applications of telehealth have been growing in popularity. However, there is little information on how telehealth is being used in Urology. In this review, we examine current applications of telehealth in urological practices as well as barriers to implementation. METHODS: A review was conducted of original research within the past 10 years describing telehealth applications in urology. Articles on telehealth as applied to other specialties were reviewed for discussion on real or perceived barriers to implementation. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common application of telehealth was using a video visit to assess or follow-up with patients. The second most commonly described applications of telehealth were telementorship, or the use of telehealth technology to help train providers, and telemedicine used in diagnostics. Studies consistently stated the effectiveness of the telehealth applications and the high level of patient and provider satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth is sparingly used in urology. Barriers to implementation include technological literacy, reimbursement uncertainties, and resistance to change in workflow. When used, telehealth technologies are shown to be safe, effective, and satisfactory for patients and providers. Further investigation is necessary to determine the efficacy of telehealth applications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health communication; Patient-centered care; Telehealth; Telemedicine
Authors: Chandy Ellimoottil; Ted Skolarus; Matthew Gettman; Richard Boxer; Alexander Kutikov; Benjamin R Lee; Jeremy Shelton; Todd Morgan Journal: Urology Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Deepak K Agarwal; Boyd R Viers; Marcelino E Rivera; Diedre A Nienow; Igor Frank; Matthew K Tollefson; Matthew T Gettman Journal: Mhealth Date: 2018-09-26
Authors: Justin M Dubin; W Austin Wyant; Navin C Balaji; William Lk Ong; Reda H Kettache; Malik Haffaf; Skander Zouari; Diego Santillan; Ana Maria Autrán Gómez; Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad; Stacy Loeb; James F Borin; Juan Gomez Rivas; Jeremy Grummet; Ranjith Ramasamy; Jeremy Y C Teoh Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Moises Rodriguez Socarrás; Stacy Loeb; Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh; Maria J Ribal; Jarka Bloemberg; James Catto; James N'Dow; Hendrik Van Poppel; Juan Gómez Rivas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Adam J Gadzinski; Juan J Andino; Anobel Y Odisho; Kara L Watts; John L Gore; Chad Ellimoottil Journal: Urology Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Christopher J D Wallis; James W F Catto; Antonio Finelli; Adam W Glaser; John L Gore; Stacy Loeb; Todd M Morgan; Alicia K Morgans; Nicolas Mottet; Richard Neal; Tim O'Brien; Anobel Y Odisho; Thomas Powles; Ted A Skolarus; Angela B Smith; Bernadett Szabados; Zachary Klaassen; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096