Published in

SAGE Publications, Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 10(23), p. 835-841, 2017

DOI: 10.1177/1357633x17732800

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Tele-orthopaedics: A snapshot of services in Australia

Journal article published in 2017 by Liam J. Caffery, Monica Taylor ORCID, John B. North, Anthony C. Smith
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Health services in the United States and Europe have reported that tele-orthopaedics saves significant patient travel time, reduces time off work, increases satisfaction with care and in some scenarios reduces the cost of care. Less is known about the role of tele-orthopaedics in Australia. The aim of this study was to explore Australian-based tele-orthopaedic services, and to identify the barriers and enablers associated with these services. We used a qualitative case study methodology where specific services were identified from multiple sources and invited to participate in a structured interview. Nine tele-orthopaedic services contributed to the study. Telehealth activity in each service ranged from one to 75 patients per week, and service maturity ranged from three months to 10 years. Services were used predominantly for fracture clinics and peri-operative consultations. The majority (78%) of services used videoconferencing. Two services used asynchronous methods to review radiographs without direct patient involvement. Tele-orthopaedics was found to be disruptive as it required the redesign of many care processes. However, all services found the redesign feasible. Staff resistance was a commonly cited barrier. Further, imaging repositories from multiple imaging providers complicated access to information. Key enablers included clinical champions, picture archiving and communication systems, and the perceived benefit to patients who would avoid the need for travel. Whilst it appears that tele-orthopaedics is not widely utilised in Australia, recognition of the barriers and enablers is important for the development of similar services.