Emily M Hayden1, Christopher Davis2, Sunday Clark3, Aditi U Joshi4, Elizabeth A Krupinski5, Neel Naik3, Michael J Ward6, Kori S Zachrison1, Erica Olsen7, Bernard P Chang7, Elizabeth Burner8, Kabir Yadav9, Peter W Greenwald3, Shruti Chandra4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 9. Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Telehealth has the potential to significantly change the specialty of emergency medicine (EM) and has rapidly expanded in EM during the COVID pandemic; however, it is unclear how EM should intersect with telehealth. The field lacks a unified research agenda with priorities for scientific questions on telehealth in EM. METHODS: Through the 2020 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine's annual consensus conference, experts in EM and telehealth created a research agenda for the topic. The multiyear process used a modified Delphi technique to develop research questions related to telehealth in EM. Research questions were excluded from the final research agenda if they did not meet a threshold of at least 80% of votes indicating "important" or "very important." RESULTS: Round 1 of voting included 94 research questions, expanded to 103 questions in round 2 and refined to 36 questions for the final vote. Consensus occurred with a final set of 24 important research questions spanning five breakout group topics. Each breakout group domain was represented in the final set of questions. Examples of the questions include: "Among underserved populations, what are mechanisms by which disparities in emergency care delivery may be exacerbated or ameliorated by telehealth" (health care access) and "In what situations should the quality and safety of telehealth be compared to in-person care and in what situations should it be compared to no care" (quality and safety). CONCLUSION: The primary finding from the process was the breadth of gaps in the evidence for telehealth in EM and telehealth in general. Our consensus process identified priority research questions for the use of and evaluation of telehealth in EM to fill the current knowledge gaps. Support should be provided to answer the research questions to guide the evidenced-based development of telehealth in EM.
INTRODUCTION: Telehealth has the potential to significantly change the specialty of emergency medicine (EM) and has rapidly expanded in EM during the COVID pandemic; however, it is unclear how EM should intersect with telehealth. The field lacks a unified research agenda with priorities for scientific questions on telehealth in EM. METHODS: Through the 2020 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine's annual consensus conference, experts in EM and telehealth created a research agenda for the topic. The multiyear process used a modified Delphi technique to develop research questions related to telehealth in EM. Research questions were excluded from the final research agenda if they did not meet a threshold of at least 80% of votes indicating "important" or "very important." RESULTS: Round 1 of voting included 94 research questions, expanded to 103 questions in round 2 and refined to 36 questions for the final vote. Consensus occurred with a final set of 24 important research questions spanning five breakout group topics. Each breakout group domain was represented in the final set of questions. Examples of the questions include: "Among underserved populations, what are mechanisms by which disparities in emergency care delivery may be exacerbated or ameliorated by telehealth" (health care access) and "In what situations should the quality and safety of telehealth be compared to in-person care and in what situations should it be compared to no care" (quality and safety). CONCLUSION: The primary finding from the process was the breadth of gaps in the evidence for telehealth in EM and telehealth in general. Our consensus process identified priority research questions for the use of and evaluation of telehealth in EM to fill the current knowledge gaps. Support should be provided to answer the research questions to guide the evidenced-based development of telehealth in EM.
Authors: Eloise Osborn; Marida Ritha; Rona Macniven; Tim Agius; Vita Christie; Heather Finlayson; Josephine Gwynn; Kate Hunter; Robyn Martin; Rachael Moir; Donna Taylor; Susannah Tobin; Katrina Ward; Kylie Gwynne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.390