Introduction
Telehealth is a great boon to the U.S. healthcare system. It allows people from the most distant regions to access necessary services without having to travel for hundreds of miles in search of a specialist. However, there are obstacles that prevent this method of healthcare provision from becoming a primary way of patient-provider communications. The article “Where telemedicine falls short” by Blumenthal highlights these deficiencies and implies that this approach is not a definite solution to accessibility issues. This paper will review how the article can be used to develop an educational program that reduces health risks.
The telehealth educational program reducing health risks
The evidence from this article can be efficiently utilized for recommending risk management in Telehealth. This approach has garnered sufficient attention to determine its boundaries for application, yet not all risks are adequately explained to patients. For example, there is clear evidence that Telehealth is a lifesaving intervention in remote areas or situations where other options are unavailable (Blumenthal, 2020). Moreover, it takes less time for doctors to perform their routine tasks with patients with chronic conditions, which optimizes their schedule. However, this approach to service provision has been overused, as the restrictions on its application were lifted from specific fields of medicine to all possible types of virtual support (Mahtta et al., 2021). Cost-efficiency is not a reason to select a virtual meeting with a doctor when an opportunity for an in-person visit exists. Healthcare workers must be knowledgeable regarding the possible deficiencies that can arise from the lack of physical contact during doctor meetings. For example, a patient with a high risk of cancer that is visibly undetectable must be advised against choosing telemedicine (Blumenthal, 2020). Such recommendations might play a key role in one’s well-being.
Another critical disadvantage of Telehealth doctor visits is the insufficient personalization of patient diagnostics. Blumenthal (2020) argues that “trusting relationships between patients and clinicians can be a boon to giving and receiving care” (para. 4). Without this connection, there is a risk of symptoms being misrepresented or left unmentioned. Medical staff must be knowledgeable on how to stay focused on the fact that they are not addressing a data set when dealing with patients online (Kuziemsky et al., 2020). Educating people regarding these possible deficiencies is a necessary step in the mindful adoption of Telehealth.
A nurse must keep a close tab on the regularity of in-person visits for their patients. Educating them on the possible factors that may require periodical physical assessments can become a vital addition to Telehealth courses that will complement the popularity of this approach with safety precautions. Since there are well-defined groups of high-risk patients, this data may be used for creating examples for cases that require additional attention during online meetings (Blumenthal, 2020). Moreover, teaching medical employees how to stay emotionally connected with virtual patients may reduce risk factors related to ethical issues during such visits. Blumenthal’s arguments in favor of personal meetings reveal that virtual examinations cannot be applied to every case and must be adequately limited by medical personnel.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Telehealth is in need of further research on its boundaries of applicability, requiring doctors and nurses to exercise caution when assessing one’s health remotely. There are high risks of symptoms remaining unnoticed when a patient frequently uses Telehealth, making it essential for healthcare personnel to keep a closer look at a patient’s possible conditions. Teaching nurses about the appropriateness of online meetings can be as much of a lifesaver as the greater accessibility of medical services provided by this mode of communication.
References
Blumenthal, D. (2020). Where telemedicine falls short.Commonwealth Fund. Web.
Kuziemsky, C. E., Hunter, I., Gogia, S. B., Lyenger, S., Kulatunga, G., Rajput, V., Subbian, V., John, O., Kleber, A., Mandirola, H. F., Florez-Arango, J., Al-Shorbaji, N., Meher, S., Udayasankaran, J. G., & Basu, A. (2020). Ethics in Telehealth: Comparison between guidelines and practice-based experience – the case for learning health systems. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 29(01), 44-50. Web.
Mahtta, D., Daher, M., Lee, M. T., Sayani, S., Shishehbor, M., & Virani, S. S. (2021). Promise and perils of Telehealth in the current era.Current Cardiology Reports, 23(9). Web.