|
Authors Benjamin Mitchell*, John Mitchell*, Dr Alex Disney**
*John Mitchell & Associates, ** Renal Unit,
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, South Australia, Australia.
We carried out a longitudinal study to evaluate the users
attitudes to the introduction of telemedicine into the dialysis
units of a renal ward in South Australia. The first questionnaire
was distributed to all members of staff involved with the introduction
of the system. There were 44 responses (80%). Staff were fairly
positive about the telemedicine system, and felt that it was easy
to use and reliable. They also clearly felt that the confidentiality
and privacy offered by the system in an open ward were unsatisfactory.
A second questionnaire was distributed to all staff about six months
later and there were 40 responses (66%). Of these, 22 could be matched
with the responses from the first survey (a response rate of 50%
from the first sample). There were no significant changes in staff
members feelings between the two surveys, except in two cases:
there were significant changes in staff opinion about the degree
of confidentiality (P<0.05) and privacy (PP<0.01) offered
by the system, with attitudes becoming more positive in each case.
The results indicate the need for dialogue with users, in order
to address their concerns regarding the system and practical difficulties.
This study highlights the importance of planning, effort, cooperation
and an appropriate culture within a renal unit in order for telemedicine
to be accepted.
The Queen Elizabeth Hospitals Renal Dialysis Telemedicine
Project was undertaken from May 1994 to June 1995 and included the
installation of videoconferencing facilities at its four renal dialysis
centres at Woodville, Wayville (10 km from Woodville), North Adelaide
(8 km) and Port Augusta (300 km)(Fig 1). The renal unit was dialysing
a total of 145 patients at these four centres, with each patient
normally dialysing three times per week and attending an outpatient
clinic once every two months.
Initially, four videoconferencing units were used (PictureTel System
4000), which were connected to document and miniature probe cameras.
After the first year of the project four more desktop units were
purchased. Approximately A$450,000 (where A$1 is 0.6 ECU or US$0.75)
funding was provided by the South Australian Health Commission in
November 1993.
The aims of the telemedicine project were to assess the feasibility
and cost-effectiveness of telemedicine as a means of improving the
quality of patient care, to determine the need for the further education
of dialysis staff, and to monitor dialysis processes and equipment
at sites remote from the main dialysis institution. These aims were
later expanded, based on early experiences with the project, to
include the development of strategies to accelerate user adoption
and to maximise both the number of users within the Unit and the
breadth of telemedicine applications. An additional aim was to assess
the value of desktop videoconferencing for clinical consultations.
A formal evaluation was carried out to assess staff members
attitude towards the videoconferencing at the time of installation,
as well as the change in their attitudes after six months of experience
with the system. The surveys were used by the project management
team to identify key areas of staff concern, and to measure the
effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce these concerns.
As reported by other authors (1) there have been few studies dealing
with the acceptance of telemedicine by physicians or users. Those
studies which have been conducted have typically had small and restrictive
sample sizes, often with under a dozen users (1-3). Of these studies
many have questioned the project management staff, or practitioners
who have not used the technology (4). Typically there has also been
a focus on the specialist or physician with many studies ignoring
allied health or nursing staff.
Participants
A longitudinal survey was carried out.. The first questionnaire
was distributed in December 1994 and a follow up questionnaire was
distributed in May 1995. The initial survey was conducted at the
main centre at Woodville, and the Wayville and Port Augusta satellite
centres. The final survey also included the North Adelaide satellite
centre. The participants included all renal unit staff who would
use the systems - consisting of physicians, nurses, allied health
staff and technicians.
A two-page questionnaire, using both open- and closed-response
questions, was designed by the project management team. The questionnaire
requested information, using closed-response questions, about the
following:
- importance of the telemedicine system to the unit;
- number of times the system was used, along with current and
expected frequency of use;
- perceived ease of use, ease of access, reliability, confidentiality
and privacy of the telemedicine system;
- perceived effectiveness of the induction program and organisation
of the network (e.g. timetabling, site co-ordination).
The closed questions dealing with attitudes were assessed using
a seven-point Likert scale. An example was the question How
reliable to do you believe the system is? with respondents
indicating their response on a scale from 1 (very reliable)
to 7 (very unreliable). The directions of the anchor
points was varied to reduce possible response bias.
Open-ended questions were asked about practical difficulties experienced
with the system and suggestions for further improvement. In the
initial survey closed questions were also asked about benefits,
both personal and organisational, and initial concerns regarding
the system. An example of this type of question was Please
indicate your three main areas of concern regarding the use of the
system, with subjects writing their response on the sheet
provided.
The questionnaires were intended to be distributed to all potential
users of the telemedicine system, although in practice a subsample,
chosen for convenience, was selected. Participants were asked to
complete the questionnaire in their own time and return it to the
project officer. The data collection lasted approximately two weeks.
In order to obtain a more complete understanding of staff members
attitudes and beliefs about the telemedicine system, it was decided
that the survey should be confidential. In order to compare responses
between the initial and final survey, a coding system was used (participants
recorded the first three letters of their month of birth and their
mothers maiden name)
The responses to both the open and closed questions were analysed
from the first survey in order to gain a complete picture of staff
members beliefs about and attitudes towards telemedicine.
In the second survey only the closed responses were analysed in
order to gain an understanding of how beliefs and attitudes had
changed.
The first questionnaire was distributed to all members of staff
involved with the system, approximately 60 people. There were 44
responses, a response rate of about 75%. The second questionnaire
was also distributed to all staff, and there were 40 responses (66%).
Of these, 22 could be matched with the responses from the first
survey (a response rate of 50% from the first sample). A summary
of the responses from the first and second surveys is presented
in Table 1.
There were several reasons for the lower response rate to the second
survey. First, the renal unit experienced high staff turnover, and
large numbers of staff had moved into non-dialysis wards of the
unit. Secondly, there were problems with the coding system, with
some staff completing it and some completing it in an indecipherable
or incorrect way (12 responses).
The responses from the first survey indicated a wide range of perceptions
about how frequently the staff would use the telemedicine equipment
(Table 2). Nearly half the staff said that they would use the system
at least once a week, while about a third were unsure of the frequency.
Thus most staff expected that the telemedicine system would become
a part of their weekly routine, with some staff waiting to see the
applications of the equipment before committing to a particular
level of future use.
| Initial Staff Survey |
December |
Woodville |
47 |
Registered Nurse |
32 |
|
|
Wayville |
|
Allied Health |
6 |
|
|
Pt. Augusta |
|
Enrolled Nurse |
3 |
|
|
|
|
Medical Staff |
3 |
|
|
|
|
Technical |
3 |
| Final Staff Survey |
May/June |
Woodville |
40 |
Registered Nurse |
27 |
|
|
Wayville |
|
Allied Health |
2 |
|
|
Pt. Augusta |
|
Technical |
8 |
|
|
North Adelaide |
|
Medical Staff |
3 |
| More than once a week |
12 |
| Once a week |
9 |
| Once a fortnight |
3 |
| Once a month |
3 |
| Never |
1 |
| Unable to say |
16 |
The responses from the first survey indicated a wide range of perceptions
about how frequently the staff would have used the telemedicine
equipment (Table 2). Nearly half the staff said that they would
use the system at least once a week, while about a third were unsure
of the frequency. Thus most staff expected that the telemedicine
system would become a part of their weekly routine, with some staff
waiting to see the applications of the equipment before committing
themselves to a particular level of future use.
The responses to the closed-response questions are summarized in
Table 3. The results indicated that staff felt fairly positive about
the telemedicine system, and felt that it was easy to use and reliable.
They also felt that the induction programme was effective. The staff
felt on average that they had barely adequate amounts of time during
their duties to practice using the system. The staff clearly felt
that the confidentiality and privacy offered by the system in an
open ward were unsatisfactory..
|
|
|
| Feelings towards system |
very negative/very positive |
5.43
|
1.26
|
| Ease of use |
very difficult/very easy |
4.89
|
1.21
|
| Reliability |
very poor/very good |
4.62
|
1.08
|
| Confidentiality |
very unsatisfactory/very satisfactory |
3.33
|
1.58
|
| Privacy |
very low/very high |
2.86
|
1.26
|
| Induction effectiveness |
very ineffective/very effective |
5.29
|
1.21
|
| Practice time |
adequate/inadequate |
4.14
|
1.41
|
| Timetabling and scheduling |
very poor/very good |
4.25
|
1.00
|
Note: all variables were measured using Likert scales (range 1-7),
where higher scores represented more positive appraisals, and where
a score of four was considered average or mid-range.
The most frequently cited benefits for the individual respondents
are presented in Table 4. Factors most often mentioned related to
increased communication between sites, easier access to staff and
patients, and improved education. A secondary set of personal benefits
seemed to involve the application of this increased quality of communication
to problem solving and clinical management, resulting in an improved
quality of patient care. An interesting finding was the perceived
personal benefit arising out of the opportunity to work with a new
technology.
| Enhanced communication between site |
15 |
| Easier access to staff and patients |
14 |
| Ongoing education |
13 |
| Increased problem solving ability |
11 |
| Opportunity to work with a new technology |
10 |
| Time, cost and travel savings |
10 |
| Better quality of care |
5 |
| Regular in-service training at satellite centres |
5 |
| Up to date information |
3 |
| Increased unit cohesiveness/unity |
3 |
Staff suggested a smaller range of benefits that the technology
would bring to the unit than to themselves (Table 5). The main benefits
mentioned were administrative (travel, time or money savings) and
those to do with improving the skills of the staff of the unit (through
greater communication, education, access and cohesiveness).
| Travel, time or money savings |
26 |
| Improved communication |
21 |
| Staff education/information/development |
16 |
| Increased quality of care |
9 |
| Easier access to staff and patients |
8 |
| Better treatment/follow-up/review |
5 |
| Increased unit cohesiveness |
3 |
The major areas of concern for staff were mostly related to the
physical nature of the equipment and the ward environments were
it was used (Table 6.). The most commonly mentioned areas of concern
were confidentiality and privacy. Written responses indicated that
staff felt awkward using the system when it was placed in the ward
because the conversation was audible throughout the ward. Some of
the centres had alternative rooms outside the general ward area.
However, this strategy generated its own problems, as a secondary
set of concerns related to equipment mobility, because the cabinets
were heavy and difficult to steer. For these reasons the videoconferencing
equipment was sometimes not taken out into the dialysis areas, but
parked in withdrawal areas set up for private telemedicine consultations.
A final set of concerns were related to a lack of information about
the videoconferencing system and its intended uses ( expense, reduction
in personal contact). It is interesting that the technology itself
was not the major concern of staff, with only a few concerns over
its clinical effectiveness (quality and adequacy for acute problems).
| Confidentiality |
26 |
| Privacy |
12 |
| Mobility |
11 |
| Access restrictions/scheduling |
7 |
| Expense |
6 |
| Reduction in personal contact |
5 |
| No call indicator |
3 |
| Quality of equipment |
2 |
| Adequacy for acute problems |
2 |
| Patient acceptance |
1 |
As well as concerns about the use of the system, staff were asked
to identify the major problems they encountered when they actually
used the system. Responses indicated that issues to do with the
integration of the unit into the clinical setting were the major
difficulties (mobility, lighting, privacy, position of equipment)
(Table 7). A secondary set of difficulties concerned education and
training (lack of practice time, scheduling difficulties, and requests
for more information about the operation and use of the equipment).
| Moving equipment |
13 |
| Lighting |
5 |
| Insufficient time to practise |
5 |
| Timetabling and scheduling difficulties |
4 |
| Lack of knowledge about operation and uses |
4 |
| Image quality |
4 |
| Privacy |
4 |
| Position of equipment |
2 |
Staff indicated that their preferred method of becoming more confident
and consistent users of the equipment involved more use and practice
with the equipment, modification of the equipment to improve its
mobility and privacy, and improved co-ordination and education (Table
8).
| More use/practice |
15 |
| Easier to move equipment |
8 |
| Privacy improved |
6 |
| Timetables |
4 |
| More education |
4 |
| Call indicator |
3 |
| Headphones/microphone set |
3 |
| Regular project updates |
3 |
| Regular links between sites |
3 |
| feelings towards system |
22
|
5.59
|
1.44
|
5.68
|
0.99
|
3.45
|
0.75
|
| ease of use |
19
|
4.95
|
1.18
|
4.84
|
1.34
|
-6.87
|
0.74
|
| reliability |
19
|
4.74
|
1.05
|
4.58
|
1.17
|
-6.04
|
0.67
|
| confidentiality |
21
|
3.24
|
1.76
|
4.29
|
1.10
|
52.35
|
0.02
|
| privacy |
21
|
2.57
|
1.33
|
3.86
|
1.15
|
74.81
|
0.00
|
| induction effectiveness |
15
|
5.85
|
0.90
|
6.00
|
0.85
|
7.60
|
0.34
|
| practice time |
14
|
3.93
|
1.27
|
4.93
|
1.38
|
38.39
|
0.04
|
| time-tabling and scheduling |
14
|
4.50
|
1.09
|
4.07
|
1.49
|
-17.06
|
0.35
|
Responses were compared between the initial and final surveys using
a paired t-test (Table 9). There were no significant differences
in the staff members feelings, except in two cases: there
were significant differences in staff opinion about the degree of
confidentiality (P<0.05) and privacy (P<0.01)
offered by the system, with attitudes becoming more positive in
each case.
The two surveys revealed that most staff felt positive about the
telemedicine system and felt that it would become a part of their
working routine. The major concerns were to do with integrating
the physical units onto the working areas of the dialysis centres.
The initial induction programme was considered effective, although
staff continued to express the desire for further training and experience.
Finally, the issues of confidentiality and privacy were more often
expressed as attitudes towards using the system rather than as practical
difficulties that had occurred with use. With experience and some
interventions described below, attitudes improved.
The responses to the surveys demonstrate the need for the following
processes when introducing telemedicine technology into clinical
wards: training and support for increasing usage, modifications
to the videoconferencing of boardroom-oriented equipment to serve
in a clinical environment, management structures to facilitate change,
evaluation and feedback cycles in the establishment of the technology.
The surveys were invaluable to the project management team and
provided the following successful interventions: introduction and
continuing investigation of the most comfortable and functional
headsets for use by the patients and staff, the addition of larger
wheels to and the removal of the glass doors from the cabinets carrying
the telemedicine equipment, and the provision of more training opportunities
for staff. These strategies and the problems they have addressed
are discussed below.
One of the major challenges for telemedicine is for the technology
to become easily adopted on wards. The many benefits of telemedicine
will be realised only occur if the technology can be easily integrated
into existing work practices. This study highlights some of the
steps that need to be taken to achieve these benefits. The user
is often overlooked in much of the discussion about telemedicine.
Many of the issues involved in establishing videoconferencing in
the present study were to do with human factors rather than problems
with the technology. There was very little question that videoconferencing
could be used successfully.
There were several issues underlying the initial concerns of staff.
Some related to attitudes to the technology, and others to problems
with the design of the equipment. These problems were dealt with
by two strategies: in order to overcome negative attitudes and beliefs,
education and dialogue were used; in order to overcome equipment
problems, modifications were made to the designs to make the equipment
more appropriate to a clinical setting. It is worth noting that
there were very few problems arising from the actual quality of
the picture or sound transmitted via the rollabout videoconferencing
units.
There has been some debate in the telemedicine literature on the
technical capabilities of videoconferencing equipment. This study
demonstrates that the equipment can be clinically useful even at
low bandwidths (128kbit/s), if the technology is absorbed into existing
work practices rather than replacing them. There were many clinical
uses of videoconferencing during the project, if the term clinical
is extended to include all uses by physicians, allied health staff
and nurses. Some of the most frequent users of the system were the
registrars, the pharmacists, social workers, dieticians and several
key nurses. The study demonstrated that telemedicine is more likely
to make an impact if range of staff become active users of the technology,
not just the leading physician.
The introduction of telemedicine technology is complex, and requires
constant feedback and dialogue with the staff. In the present study,
many of the barriers to the increased use of the technology involved
negotiation and compromise between the users and their managers.
For example, providing a suitable location for the telemedicine
units was difficult. Some staff felt uncomfortable when using the
system in the dialysis areas, and preferred it to be used in other
rooms. However, this defeated the purpose of using the equipment
while the patients were dialysing, as well as reducing the likelihood
of an impromptu use of the equipment. Another example involved the
addition of a call indicator. Staff were becoming annoyed that a
senior staff member could appear on the monitor screen without warning.
Also, it was difficult for the caller to attract the attention of
staff because they were unaware that the person was there. A solution
to this problem was the addition of a flashing light and ringing
sound when an incoming call was received. These issues and others,
such as the use of headphones and microphones to improve confidentiality
and privacy (Fig.2), further emphasise the need for sensitive project
management and cultural negotiation.
Following the successful introduction of the dialysis telemedicine
system in South Australia, its evaluation is continuing into a second
year, with a cost-effectiveness study as a focal point. This continuing
evaluation satisfies Bashshurs advice (5) that Optimal
evaluations can only be performed if optimal systems are in place.
Otherwise, the evaluation simply reflects imperfections in design
rather than capability. Further research is also being undertaken
into staff use and acceptance of both room-based and desktop videoconferencing
equipment in order to make the technology even more accessible and
user-friendly.
Allen, A., Hayes, J, Sadisvan, R., Williamson, S.K., Wittman, C.
(1995). A pilot study of the physician acceptance of tele-oncology.
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 1, 34-37.
Ball, C.J., McLaren, P.M., Summerfield, A.B., Lipsedge, M.S., Watson,
J.P. A comparison of communications modes in adult psychiatry. Journal
of Telemedicine and Telecare, 1, 22-26.
Brown, F.W. (1995). A survey telepsychiatry in the USA. Journal
of Telemedicine and Telecare, 1, 19-21.
Dakin D. Mayo presentation offers insight into attitudes about
telemedicine. Telemedicine Newsletter 1995;3:1
Bashshur RL. Base evaluation on access and quality as well as cost.
Telemedicine Monthly Newsletter of Telecommunications in Healthcare
1994;2:8
Graph 1 Role of respondents to initial and final survey.
|