Perceived benefit of a telemedicine consultative service in a highly staffed intensive care unit

Department of Anesthesiology, Johns Hopkins, University School of Medicine, Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, MD, USA.
Journal of critical care (Impact Factor: 2). 03/2012; 27(4):426.e9-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2011.12.007
Source: PubMed


The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a nocturnal telemedicine service improves culture, staff satisfaction, and perceptions of quality of care in a highly staffed university critical care system.
We conducted an experiment to determine the effect of telemedicine on nursing-staff satisfaction and perceptions of the quality of care in an intensive care unit (ICU). We surveyed ICU nurses using a modified version of a previously validated tool before deployment and after a 2-month experimental program of tele-ICU. Nurses in another, similar ICU within the same hospital academic medical center served as concurrent controls for the survey responses.
Survey responses were measured using a 5-point Likert scale, and results were analyzed using paired t testing. Survey responses of the nurses in the intervention ICU (n = 27) improved significantly after implementation of the tele-ICU program in the relations and communication subscale (2.99 ± 1.13 pre vs 3.27 ± 1.27 post, P < .01), the psychological working conditions and burnout subscale (3.10 ± 1.10 pre vs 3.23 ± 1.11 post, P < .02), and the education subscale (3.52 ± 0.84 pre vs 3.76 ± 0.78 post, P < .03). In contrast, responses in the control ICU (n = 11) declined in the patient care and perceived effectiveness (3.94 ± 0.80 pre vs 3.48 ± 0.86 post, P < .01) and the education (3.95 ± 0.39 pre vs 3.50 ± 0.80 post, P < .05) subscales.
Telemedicine has the potential to improve staff satisfaction and communication in highly staffed ICUs.

Download full-text


Available from: Asad Latif, Aug 13, 2015
11 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Telemedicine extends intensivists' reach to critically ill patients cared for by other physicians. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of telemedicine on patients' outcomes. Methods We searched electronic databases through April 2012, bibliographies of included trials, and indexes and conference proceedings in two journals (2001 to 2012). We selected controlled trials or observational studies of critically ill adults or children, examining the effects of telemedicine on mortality. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data on outcomes (mortality and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital) and methodologic quality. We used random-effects meta-analytic models unadjusted for case mix or cluster effects and quantified between-study heterogeneity by using I2 (the percentage of total variability across studies attributable to heterogeneity rather than to chance). Results Of 865 citations, 11 observational studies met selection criteria. Overall quality was moderate (mean score on Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 5.1/9; range, 3 to 9). Meta-analyses showed that telemedicine, compared with standard care, is associated with lower ICU mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65 to 0.96; nine studies, n = 23,526; I2 = 70%) and hospital mortality (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.94; nine studies, n = 47,943; I2 = 72%). Interventions with continuous patient-data monitoring, with or without alerts, reduced ICU mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.95; six studies, n = 21,384; I2 = 74%) versus those with remote intensivist consultation only (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.20 to 2.07; three studies, n = 2,142; I2 = 71%), but effects were statistically similar (interaction P = 0.74). Effects were also similar in higher (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02) versus lower (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.19; interaction, P = 0.53) quality studies. Reductions in ICU and hospital length of stay were statistically significant (weighted mean difference (telemedicine-control), -0.62 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.04 days and -1.26 days; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.03 days, respectively; I2 > 90% for both). Conclusions Telemedicine was associated with lower ICU and hospital mortality among critically ill patients, although effects varied among studies and may be overestimated in nonrandomized designs. The optimal telemedicine technology configuration and dose tailored to ICU organization and case mix remain unclear.
    Critical care (London, England) 07/2012; 16(4):R127. DOI:10.1186/cc11429 · 4.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aging population is set to increase in the near future, and will need specialized care when admitted to ICUs. The elderly are beset with chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular, COPD, diabetes, renal complications and depression. Specialist opinions can now be made available through telemedicine facilities. Tele-ICU is a specialized hub consisting of highly skilled staff trained in critical care able to deliver timely, quality care service to patients admitted to ICUs in remote areas using highly advanced information technology services. These specialists in the tele-ICU hub are able to analyze and gather data arriving at timely interventional management decisions and provide this vital feedback to the nursing staff and doctors manning remote ICU locations where specialized intensivist may not be available. Known clinical benefits of such a system include better patient outcomes, reduced medical errors, mortality and reduced hospital length of stay. The main disadvantage in implementation could be the upfront high cost involved, for which low-cost models are being explored. In the face of delivering such remote care, it is up to the local health policy to make legislative changes to include associated legal and ethical issues. Considering the burgeoning aging population, tele-ICU could become the way forward in delivering geriatric critical care.
    Aging - Clinical and Experimental Research 05/2014; 26(6). DOI:10.1007/s40520-014-0217-z · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Healthcare workers can suffer from occupational stress as a result of lack of skills, organisational factors, and low social support at work. This may lead to distress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration in quality of life and service provision. To evaluate the effectiveness of work- and person-directed interventions compared to no intervention or alternative interventions in preventing stress at work in healthcare workers. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC-2 and Web of Science up to November 2013. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions aimed at preventing psychological stress in healthcare workers. For organisational interventions, interrupted time-series and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies were also eligible. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We used Standardised Mean Differences (SMDs) where authors of trials used different scales to measure stress or burnout. We combined studies that were similar in meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence. In this update, we added 39 studies, making a total of 58 studies (54 RCTs and four CBA studies), with 7188 participants. We categorised interventions as cognitive-behavioural training (CBT) (n = 14), mental and physical relaxation (n = 21), combined CBT and relaxation (n = 6) and organisational interventions (n = 20). Follow-up was less than one month in 24 studies, one to six in 22 studies and more than six months in 12 studies. We categorised outcomes as stress, anxiety or general health.There was low-quality evidence that CBT with or without relaxation was no more effective in reducing stress symptoms than no intervention at one month follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.27 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.66 to 0.13; 332 participants). But at one to six months follow-up in seven studies (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.16; 549 participants, 13% relative risk reduction), and at more than six months follow-up in two studies (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.70; 157 participants) CBT with or without relaxation reduced stress more than no intervention.CBT interventions did not lead to a considerably greater effect than an alternative intervention, in three studies.Physical relaxation (e.g. massage) was more effective in reducing stress than no intervention at one month follow-up in four studies (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.08; 97 participants) and at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.24; 316 participants). Two studies did not find a considerable difference in stress between massage and taking extra breaks.Mental relaxation (e.g. meditation) led to similar stress symptom levels as no intervention at one to six months follow-up in six studies (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.15; 205 participants) but to less stress in one study at more than six months follow-up. One study showed that mental relaxation reduced stress more effectively than attending a course on theory analysis and another that it was more effective than just relaxing in a chair.Organisational interventions consisted of changes in working conditions, organising support, changing care, increasing communication skills and changing work schedules. Changing work schedules (from continuous to having weekend breaks and from a four-week to a two-week schedule) reduced stress with SMD -0.55 (95% CI -0.84 to -0.25; 2 trials, 180 participants). Other organisational interventions were not more effective than no intervention or an alternative intervention.We graded the quality of the evidence for all but one comparison as low. For CBT this was due to the possibility of publication bias, and for the other comparisons to a lack of precision and risk of bias. Only for relaxation versus no intervention was the evidence of moderate quality. There is low-quality evidence that CBT and mental and physical relaxation reduce stress more than no intervention but not more than alternative interventions. There is also low-quality evidence that changing work schedules may lead to a reduction of stress. Other organisational interventions have no effect on stress levels. More randomised controlled trials are needed with at least 120 participants that compare the intervention to a placebo-like intervention. Organisational interventions need better focus on reduction of specific stressors.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 11/2014; 4(11). DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD002892.pub3 · 6.03 Impact Factor
Show more