A Pilot Study of Usefulness of Clinician–Patient Videoconferencing for Making Routine Medical Decisions in the Nursing Home
Article first published online: 8 JUN 2005
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Volume 53, Issue 8, pages 1380–1385, August 2005
How to Cite
Laflamme, M. R., Wilcox, D. C., Sullivan, J., Schadow, G., Lindbergh, D., Warvel, J., Buchanan, H., Ising, T., Abernathy, G., Perkins, S. M., Daggy, J., Frankel, R. M., Dexter, P., McDonald, C. J. and Weiner, M. (2005), A Pilot Study of Usefulness of Clinician–Patient Videoconferencing for Making Routine Medical Decisions in the Nursing Home. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53: 1380–1385. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53422.x
- Issue published online: 25 JUL 2005
- Article first published online: 8 JUN 2005
- nursing home;
- physician–patient relations;
- medical decision-making (computer assisted);
- video recording
Objectives: To pilot and assess the role of videoconferencing in clinicians' medical decision-making and their interactions with nursing home residents (NHRs).
Design: Paired virtual and bedside examinations. Face-to-face (FTF) examination of NHRs by off-site clinicians immediately followed videoconferencing between the same clinician–NHR pair.
Setting: A 240-bed, county-managed, urban nursing home.
Participants: NHRs (n=35) and clinicians (n=3) receiving or providing routine care between 2002 and 2003.
Measurements: Orders generated by clinicians, clinicians' ratings of videoconferencing, and coded review of video encounters. After both examinations, clinicians rated the encounters and generated orders necessary for NHRs. Orders were categorized and counted according to timing (before or after the FTF visit). Clinician–NHR interactions were assessed using coding videos with a 31-item instrument.
Results: For 71% of the encounters, clinicians stated that videoconferencing facilitated their assessment. Difficulties included sound quality (19%) and participants' familiarity with videoconferencing (7%). Although NHRs were alert in 50% of encounters, 62% of alert NHRs did not indicate understanding of the recommended treatment.
Conclusion: FTF examination was superior for most assessments, but videoconferencing was judged to be valuable, especially for wound care. Even when NHRs were alert, informed medical decision-making by NHRs with their clinicians was limited. Enhancing videoconferencing quality and providing more training about informed decision-making using videoconferencing might improve the effectiveness of the technology.