Advertisement

The Impact of Telehealth Video-Conferencing Services on Work Systems in New Zealand: Perceptions of Expert Stakeholders

  • Nicola GreenEmail author
  • David Tappin
  • Tim Bentley
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 818)

Abstract

Telehealth, the provision of health care services at a distance, is one way to address increasing problems of resource scarcity and equity of access to healthcare. However, the literature suggests there are difficulties with embedding telehealth into routine care and that in the complex system of healthcare consideration of the multiple system components would perhaps aid understanding. Using video-conferencing for the delivery of services is one approach to telehealth and the most commonly used in New Zealand. In this study, a sociotechnical systems approach was used to explore the perspectives of an expert stakeholder group regarding the current characteristics of telehealth video-conferencing services and the impact of these services on work systems. Twenty semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Preliminary analysis suggest that key themes include initial experiences of using the technology, changes in the way of working, support to provide and receive telehealth, collaboration, leadership and funding models. The themes are interrelated across the work system components and system mismatches are emerging which may be significant in explaining the lack or slower than expected realization of telehealth goals.

Keywords

Telehealth Video-conferencing Sociotechnical systems theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The participation of the NZ Telehealth Forum members is greatly appreciated. Nicola Green acknowledges the support of Massey University, by means of the Massey University Conference Presentation Grant.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (2010) Telemedicine: opportunities and developments in Member States: report on the second global survey on eHealth. Geneva. http://www.who.int/goe/publications/goe_telemedicine_2010.pdf
  2. 2.
    Bradford NK, Caffery LJ, Smith AC (2016) Telehealth services in rural and remote Australia: a systematic review of models of care and factors influencing success and sustainability. Rural Remote Health 16(4):3808 (online)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Dyk L (2014) A review of telehealth service implementation frameworks. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11(2):1279–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    New Zealand Telehealth Forum (2014) New Zealand Telehealth Stocktake: District Health Boards. www.telehealth.co.nz
  5. 5.
    World Health Organization (2016) Global diffusion of eHealth: making universal health coverage achievable. Report of the third global survey on eHealth. Geneva. http://www.who.int/goe/publications/global_diffusion/en/
  6. 6.
    Akiyama M, Yoo BK (2016) A systematic review of the economic evaluation of telemedicine in Japan. J Prev Med Public Health 49(4):183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wade VA, Karnon J, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE (2010) A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth services using real time video communication. BMC Health Serv Res 10:233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Müller KI, Alstadhaug KB, Bekkelund SI (2016) Acceptability, feasibility, and cost of telemedicine for nonacute headaches: a randomized study comparing video and traditional consultations. J Med Internet Res 18(5):e140Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wootton R, Bahaadinbeigy K, Hailey D (2011) Estimating travel reduction associated with the use of telemedicine by patients and healthcare professionals: Proposal for quantitative synthesis in a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 11:185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Birns J, Roots A, Bhalla A (2013) Role of telemedicine in the management of acute ischemic stroke. Clin Pract 10(2):189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moffatt JJ, Eley DS (2010) The reported benefits of telehealth for rural Australians. Aust Health Rev 34(3):276–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zanaboni P, Wootton R (2012) Adoption of telemedicine: from pilot stage to routine delivery. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 12(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eason K, Waterson P, Davda P (2014) The sociotechnical challenge of integrating telehealth and telecare into health and social care for the elderly. In: Healthcare administration: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications, vol 3, pp 1177–1189Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hendy J, Chrysanthaki T, Barlow J, Knapp M, Rogers A, Sanders C, Bower P, Bowen R, Fitzpatrick R, Bardsley M, Newman S (2012) An organisational analysis of the implementation of telecare and telehealth: the whole systems demonstrator. BMC Health Serv Res 12(1):403Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brewster L, Mountain G, Wessels B, Kelly C, Hawley M (2014) Factors affecting front line staff acceptance of telehealth technologies: a mixed-method systematic review. J Adv Nurs 70(1):21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kruse CS, Karem P, Shifflett K, Vegi L, Ravi K, Brooks M (2016) Evaluating barriers to adopting Telemedicine worldwide: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 0(0):1–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McLean S, Sheikh A, Cresswell K, Nurmatov U, Mukherjee M, Hemmi A, Pagliari C (2013) The impact of telehealthcare on the quality and safety of care: a systematic overview. PLoS ONE 8(8):e71238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Demiris G, Charness N, Krupinski E, Ben-Arieh D, Washington K, Wu J, Farberow B (2010) The role of human factors in telehealth. Telemed J E-health Off J Am Telemed Assoc 16(4):446–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hignett S, Carayon P, Buckley P, Catchpole K (2013) State of science: human factors and ergonomics in healthcare. Ergonomics 56(10):1491–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bazeley P (2009) Analysing qualitative data: more than ‘identifying themes’. Malays J Qual Res 2:6–22Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S (2013) Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh BT, Gurses AP, Alvarado CJ, Smith M, Brennan PF (2006) Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care 15(suppl. 1):i50–i58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ammenwerth E, Iller C, Mahler C (2006) IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: a fit framework and a case study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 6:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenhalgh T, Shaw S, Wherton J, Vijayaraghavan S, Morris J, Bhattacharya S, Hanson P, Campbell-Richards D, Ramoutar S Hodkinson I (2018) Real-world implementation of video outpatient consultations at macro, meso, and micro levels: mixed-method study. J Med Internet Res 20(4):e150Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cresswell K, Sheikh A (2013) Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: an interpretative review. Int J Med Inform 82(5):e73–e86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holden RJ, Carayon P, Gurses AP, Hoonakker P, Hundt AS, Ozok AA, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ (2013) SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics 56(11):1669–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations