Alan Taylor1, Liam J Caffery2, Hailay Abrha Gesesew1,3, Alice King4, Abdel-Rahman Bassal5, Kim Ford6, Jane Kealey7, Anthony Maeder8, Michelle McGuirk9, Donna Parkes10, Paul R Ward1. 1. College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 2. Centre for Online Health, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 3. Department of Epidemiology, School of Health Sciences, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia. 4. Barwon South West Telehealth Program, Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC, Australia. 5. Digital Telehealth Network, South Australia Health, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 6. Telehealth Tasmania, Tasmanian Health Service, Hobart, TAS, Australia. 7. Northeast Health, Wangaratta, VIC, Australia. 8. Flinders Digital Health Research Centre, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 9. Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin, NT, Australia. 10. Agency for Clinical Innovation, New South Wales Health, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
Background: In Australia, telehealth services were used as an alternative method of health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a realist analysis of a survey of health professionals, we have sought to identify the underlying mechanisms that have assisted Australian health services adapt to the physical separation between clinicians and patients. Methods: Using a critical realist ontology and epistemology, we undertook an online survey of health professionals subscribing to the Australian Telehealth Society newsletter. The survey had close- and open-ended questions, constructed to identify contextual changes in the operating environment for telehealth services, and assess the mechanisms which had contributed to these changes. We applied descriptive and McNemar's Chi-square analysis for the close-ended component of the survey, and a reflexive thematic analysis approach for the open-ended questions which were framed within the activity based funding system which had previously limited telehealth services to regional Australia. Results: Of the 91 respondents most (73%) reported a higher volume of telephone-based care since COVID and an increase in use of video consultations (60% of respondents). Respondents felt that the move to provide care using telehealth services had been a "forced adoption" where clinicians began to use telehealth services (often for the first time) to maintain health care. Respondents noted significant changes in managerial and medical culture which supported the legitimisation of telehealth services as a mode of access to care. The support of leaders and the use personal and organisational networks to facilitate the operation of telehealth service were felt to be particularly valuable. Access to, and reliability of, the technology were considered extremely important for services. Respondents also welcomed the increased availability of more human and financial resources. Conclusions: During the pandemic, mechanisms that legitimise practise, build confidence, support relationships and supply resources have fostered the use of telehealth. This ongoing interaction between telehealth services, contexts and mechanisms is complex. The adoption of telehealth access to enable physically separated care, may mark a "new context;" or it could be that once the pandemic passes, previous policies and practises will re-assert themselves and curb support for telehealth-enabled care.
Background: In Australia, telehealth services were used as an alternative method of health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through a realist analysis of a survey of health professionals, we have sought to identify the underlying mechanisms that have assisted Australian health services adapt to the physical separation between clinicians and patients. Methods: Using a critical realist ontology and epistemology, we undertook an online survey of health professionals subscribing to the Australian Telehealth Society newsletter. The survey had close- and open-ended questions, constructed to identify contextual changes in the operating environment for telehealth services, and assess the mechanisms which had contributed to these changes. We applied descriptive and McNemar's Chi-square analysis for the close-ended component of the survey, and a reflexive thematic analysis approach for the open-ended questions which were framed within the activity based funding system which had previously limited telehealth services to regional Australia. Results: Of the 91 respondents most (73%) reported a higher volume of telephone-based care since COVID and an increase in use of video consultations (60% of respondents). Respondents felt that the move to provide care using telehealth services had been a "forced adoption" where clinicians began to use telehealth services (often for the first time) to maintain health care. Respondents noted significant changes in managerial and medical culture which supported the legitimisation of telehealth services as a mode of access to care. The support of leaders and the use personal and organisational networks to facilitate the operation of telehealth service were felt to be particularly valuable. Access to, and reliability of, the technology were considered extremely important for services. Respondents also welcomed the increased availability of more human and financial resources. Conclusions: During the pandemic, mechanisms that legitimise practise, build confidence, support relationships and supply resources have fostered the use of telehealth. This ongoing interaction between telehealth services, contexts and mechanisms is complex. The adoption of telehealth access to enable physically separated care, may mark a "new context;" or it could be that once the pandemic passes, previous policies and practises will re-assert themselves and curb support for telehealth-enabled care.
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Trisha Greenhalgh; Joseph Wherton; Chrysanthi Papoutsi; Jennifer Lynch; Gemma Hughes; Christine A'Court; Susan Hinder; Nick Fahy; Rob Procter; Sara Shaw Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Anthony C Smith; Emma Thomas; Centaine L Snoswell; Helen Haydon; Ateev Mehrotra; Jane Clemensen; Liam J Caffery Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: Lisa M Koonin; Brooke Hoots; Clarisse A Tsang; Zanie Leroy; Kevin Farris; Tilman Jolly; Peter Antall; Bridget McCabe; Cynthia B R Zelis; Ian Tong; Aaron M Harris Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Mei Lan Fang; Morven Walker; Karen Lok Yi Wong; Judith Sixsmith; Leslie Remund; Andrew Sixsmith Journal: Healthc Manage Forum Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Craig Moore; Arnold Y L Wong; Katie de Luca; Diana De Carvalho; Melker S Johansson; Katherine A Pohlman; Amy Miller; Martha Funabashi; Paul Dougherty; Simon French; Jon Adams; Greg Kawchuk Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2022-05-09
Authors: Stefano Omboni; Raj S Padwal; Tourkiah Alessa; Béla Benczúr; Beverly B Green; Ilona Hubbard; Kazuomi Kario; Nadia A Khan; Alexandra Konradi; Alexander G Logan; Yuan Lu; Maurice Mars; Richard J McManus; Sarah Melville; Claas L Neumann; Gianfranco Parati; Nicolas F Renna; Philippe Ryvlin; Hugo Saner; Aletta E Schutte; Jiguang Wang Journal: Connect Health Date: 2022-01-04
Authors: Sara E Shaw; Gemma Hughes; Joseph Wherton; Lucy Moore; Rebecca Rosen; Chrysanthi Papoutsi; Alex Rushforth; Joanne Morris; Gary W Wood; Stuart Faulkner; Trisha Greenhalgh Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2021-12-20