Based on the innovations that are related to medical devices or techniques that can be used by healthcare providers, upon the onset of the covid-19 virus many individuals began to resort to a more digital aspect of healthcare, do you believe that resorting to a digital way of services for healthcare has caused more of a hinderance or more access to healthcare?
Based on the innovations that are related to medical devices or techniques that can be used by healthcare providers, upon the onset of the covid-19 virus many individuals began to resort to a more digital aspect of healthcare, do you believe that resorting to a digital way of services for healthcare has caused more of a hinderance or more access to healthcare?
I think it has improved access, even if only marginally. Lots of individuals had difficulties with access to healthcare from a physical standpoint in addition to the systemic and socioeconomic hinderances they faced. Allowing for telehealth measures increases access for those that physically had difficulties meeting with and speaking to their providers, in addition to those that no longer feel safe/comfortable going in-person due to being high-risk. If anything, this should continue to improve healthcare by improving accessibility for all kinds of individuals, even once we can rid ourselves of covid.
Telemedicine is giving more access, I believe. In the age of technology, people are on their phones more than they are in a doctor's office. So since people are on the apps more, then why not create an app where people can tell their doctors what is wrong without seeing them face to face? People of today open up more to what is on their phone. Also, it is easy to unlock your phone, and tell a AI assistant your symptoms right away than having to set up a far away doctor's appointment, then drive all the way to the doctor's and have to feel uncomfortable. It makes it very easy to get medical help when you need it.
The implementation of widespread telehealth appointments post-covid has only increased access to healthcare services for all. However it's important to acknowledge the limitations built into such a service; there is no physical interaction by design. We as biomedical engineers can strive to create devices to augment telemedicine. Telehealth services are absolutely vital for those who have limited/no access to a health provider, whatever the situation. Without the associated costs of a physical business, many brands have popped up offering health services online; HIMS and BetterHealth come to mind. The "push online" has led to greater access to healthcare for all who can get on the internet; the problem now becomes one of quality and access. An increase in availability and better tools for those who need them will only benefit the general health of society.
Although I agree that telehealth improved access for many who had issues physically going to see the doctor, I am concerned about the way it is continuing the trend of informal, non-comprehensive exams by health care providers.
In the US, doctors are spending less time with their patients because of insurance billing. The doctor's time spent with a patient is predetermined by the insurance of the patient and often times a 10-15 minute check up is rushed, especially if a patient is trying to inform the doctor of everything medical that has happened to them that year with sufficient detail. I think the online format of telehealth makes everyone, patients and doctors, more comfortable with these appointments being very quick and surface level, which prevents patients from forming a meaningful relationship with their healthcare provider.
Additionally, the loss of the physical exam is not something to be overlooked. There are many conditions that doctors are trained to identify in person that do not have symptoms a patient would notice. Without the in person exam, those conditions will be missed, which is dangerous for the patient.
- Digital services in healthcare both has its pros and cons. It does make healthcare more accessible to those who might not always have time to physically go see a healthcare professional. It can be very beneficial with visits to mental health professionals, where being physically there is not really necessary to receive adequate care. However, I personally have seen a recent trend where other healthcare professionals, such as primary care physicians and dermatologists, have resorted to using online visits as their only method of patient care, which had definitely decrease the quality of healthcare many individuals have been receiving. From firsthand experience, these appointments can feel rushed and inconclusive. Many tests are unable to be done without a doctor present, so many times these online visits just feel like a waste of time. I personally will always physically go see a doctor
I agree with many of the responses here in that telehealth allows for better access to healthcare, but it has it has limitations that prevent it from replacing in-person care and treatment. Obviously telehealth cannot allow for a doctor to do a proper exam on a person but it does bridge the gap for patients who may not be able to seek medical advice or checkups. For patients living in rural areas where the nearest clinic or hospital could be hours away, online video calls can allow for doctors to be able to check up on them and if it seems the condition of the patient requires an in-person visit then one can be arranged. I remember watching a 60minutes documentary episode on the doctors and nurses making house calls to patients in rural communities in Texas and they mentioned how it is difficult for these communities to get access to healthcare due to not only the associated high costs but also just the traveling distance to see a healthcare professional at a hospital or clinic.
I think telehealth opens up avenues for individuals who are seeking care or help for their mental health as well. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted a lot of people in some way shape or form and it isn't surprising that their mental health was also affected. I have some friends who are able to contact their doctors and their therapists via zoom or phone calls. From what they have told me, they appreciate the accessibility they have throughout the day if needed, because it eliminates the hassle of booking an available appointment. Telehealth allows them to get access to a healthcare professional much faster which can be severely beneficial for individuals.
A lot of the responses here seem to say that the improved access that telehealth provides is good, especially for lower income patients. Many seem to think that "something is better than nothing" in terms of access to healthcare for these low income and therefore high risk population.
Is the logical progression of this idea nothing more than in person physician appointments are only for the wealthy? This trend is disturbing.
If there are no doctors in your area, telehealth is not just as good as in person treatment access. This is a systemic issue and the existence to telehealth will only allow the systems in place to be more comfortable with lack of access for vulnerable populations. Unless the "tele" in telehealth stands for teleportation, it will not significantly increase healthcare access for isolated individuals.
The rise in telehealth has definitely provided several benefits such as the ease of speaking to a doctor without having to commute to an office. As many posts discussed above, telehealth makes health care more accessible to those seeking services, especially if their doctor requires a long commute for physical visits. Although such benefits exist for some, others still may not have the same access to healthcare. A post above questioned whether in person physician appointments are only for the wealthy, and I wouldn’t say that this trend applies to telehealth, but I do think that telehealth is not available for all. For example, some people may not have access to Wi-Fi, a phone/laptop, etc., which limits their ability to speak to a doctor. What benefits does the rise in telehealth have for these individuals? Telehealth just makes meeting with a doctor easier, but does not increase access to healthcare.
Given the previous posts for this question, I believe it is important to define telehealth and telemedicine. Telemedicine is specifically the delivery of clinical services remotely which is a subsection of telehealth which also includes remote non-clinical services. Throughout undergrad I worked in the healthcare sector including during the COVID-19 pandemic where there was a surge in telehealth. Telehealth made information through provider training, administrative meetings, and continued medical education much more streamlined and obtainable and has definitely contributed to an improvement in accessibility to healthcare, as per my peers posts, given patients were able to seek out medical advice inexpensively and more immediately. Several literature reports that telehealth has led to just as good or better clinical outcomes than in-person care and has improved intermediate outcomes and satisfaction, therefore, I have to disagree with @ag2357.
@mmodi During a pandemic, when I assume this data was collected, telehealth and medicine is great, but people deserve to be able to see their doctor. Cheapness as a goal is an indictment of the entire system.
As an addendum to my post, the objective of telehealth is to help bridge the gap between patient and provider and literature has reported improved access for underserved patient populations so I am not sure where this narrative is coming from that telehealth does not increase access to healthcare. Sure it may not be accessible to everyone but that is not the point - it is accessible to a segment of the population who were not previously able to gain access to healthcare whether that be due to the costs of in-person visits, the proximity of their doctors office due to poor insurance coverage, or other health constraints. The introduction of telehealth does not mean you cannot see your doctor, it provides another outlet through which they are available.
I really am on the fence when it comes to telehealth. Though it is very convenient for the patient to have the comfort of sitting at home and consulting a doctor, on the other hand, in an in-person visit, the doctor can have the chance to look for other physical inhibitors that can easily go unseen in a virtual meeting.
Telehealth, to me, is an excellent resource when it comes to a second opinion. A dermatologist sitting in Rome can easily contact an American doctor for a second opinion. This is truly a gift of technological advancement.
Here is my perspective:
A medical Diagnosis is reliant on technology, which could be remotely accessed by a doctor, overseas, which would help the doctor better understand the physical vitals of the patient in real time and make a clinical diagnosis. This could be beneficial for low level medical issues (fever, hypertension, diabetes, etc.) and not for critical scenarios (amputations, surgeries, first aid; telemedicine should only be used as a source for a secondary opinion).
I believe that telemedicine has increased access to healthcare in some specialties of medicine; however, it also has some downfalls as well. I believe that telemedicine is not applicable to all specialties of medicine, but it can be beneficial in some. For instance in mental and behavioral health, many psychiatrists and nurse practitioners have been able to provide evaluations and medication management via telemedicine allowing them to increase the amount of patients they can see. On the other hand there is still a shortage for mental health service providers and clinicians creating a waitlist for services that are often needed sooner rather than later. I think that telemedicine has its pros and cons, but I am not fully inclined to say that it has completely provided more access to healthcare.
Telehealth, or the use of telecommunications technology to provide healthcare services remotely, has become increasingly popular in recent years, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. While some argue that telehealth has increased access to healthcare for individuals who may have difficulty accessing traditional in-person care, others argue that it may actually hinder access for certain populations. On the one hand, telehealth has the potential to increase access to healthcare by removing many of the barriers that prevent individuals from receiving care. For example, telehealth can be especially beneficial for individuals who live in rural or remote areas, who may have difficulty accessing traditional healthcare services due to distance or lack of transportation. Additionally, telehealth can be more convenient and cost-effective than in-person care, especially for individuals who have mobility issues, childcare responsibilities, or who cannot take time off work to attend medical appointments.On the other hand, telehealth may actually hinder access to healthcare for certain populations, especially those who are already marginalized or underserved. For example, individuals who lack access to reliable internet or who cannot afford the necessary technology may be unable to access telehealth services. Additionally, some individuals may feel uncomfortable using telehealth, either due to a lack of familiarity with the technology or due to privacy concerns. Finally, telehealth may not be appropriate for all medical conditions or situations, and some individuals may still require in-person care to receive appropriate treatment. In summary, I believe that the impact of telehealth on access to healthcare is complex and depends on a variety of factors, including an individual's geographic location, socioeconomic status, access to technology, and comfort level with telehealth. While telehealth has the potential to increase access to healthcare for some populations, it may also hinder access for others. As such, it is important for healthcare providers and policymakers to carefully consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of telehealth, and to ensure that all individuals have access to the care they need, regardless of their ability to use telehealth services.
