Emergency teleneurology and telestroke care—the importation of stroke and emergency neurology specialists to the patient’s bedside using videoconferencing technologies—is growing steadily in magnitude, impact and validation. Early in the decade some hundreds of patients each year were connected to specialists by video conferencing; in 2010 literally thousands of acute stroke patients will have a distant specialty neurologist involved in the critical phases of their care. The typical associated conclusion is that the evolution of technology has allowed the growth of telemedicine in general, and specifically teleneurology and telestroke. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it’s time the word gets out that the breakthroughs driving the successful growth of this one dimension of telemedicine are financial, not technical.
Today, both university-based and private telemedicine efforts bring good neurology to the bedside of the patients who most need the benefits of evidence-based best practices. Patient acceptance has proven to be high, technology supportive of good clinical results, and distance-based practice capable of great, measureable clinical impact. Increasingly, local physicians are realizing that telemedicine can be used to enhance, and not burden, their practices, and in the case of on-call coverage, can help them focus upon their core practice and prevent burnout while actually expanding their patient population. The successful evolution of teleneurology is providing an operational model for the effective distribution of other specialty services by telemedicine. And it’s all due to the fact that hospitals who lack effective neurology call coverage are financially worse off, and at a competitive disadvantage to those hospitals that have good call coverage.
The model for hospital-supported teleneurology has been relatively easy to define because about 70% of emergency neurology cases referred to expert neurologists by telemedicine are acute strokes and other neurovascular events. In this narrow collection of diagnoses, it’s been possible to build a reasonable predictive model for hospital returns-on-investment against the costs of imported specialty neurologists. And on that basis, telestroke and teleneurology services have grown, and are demonstrating the values that telemedicine has always seemed to promise but never deliver: efficiency, distribution of talent free of geographic restraints, and real benefits for patients and hospitals.
Not all specialties lend themselves to the financial model that supports teleneurology and telestroke care…But all telemedicine strategies that deliver combined efficiency and quality will eventually find support from a party at-risk for the costs of poor care, and this will spark the attention of telemedicine providers ready to deliver clinical care at a distance. And there will, of course, be technology involved; it will be less expensive than today’s technology; and its reliability will be critical to the effective use of the system, but it will not have started the next push in telemedicine. Finances will drive that. As a model for care, teleneurology has explored interesting ground that will serve as a foundation for other telemedicine specialties. It too has lent some new lessons, and reinforced the importance of some that are old.
Today, both university-based and private telemedicine efforts bring good neurology to the bedside of the patients who most need the benefits of evidence-based best practices. Patient acceptance has proven to be high, technology supportive of good clinical results, and distance-based practice capable of great, measureable clinical impact. Increasingly, local physicians are realizing that telemedicine can be used to enhance, and not burden, their practices, and in the case of on-call coverage, can help them focus upon their core practice and prevent burnout while actually expanding their patient population. The successful evolution of teleneurology is providing an operational model for the effective distribution of other specialty services by telemedicine. And it’s all due to the fact that hospitals who lack effective neurology call coverage are financially worse off, and at a competitive disadvantage to those hospitals that have good call coverage.
The model for hospital-supported teleneurology has been relatively easy to define because about 70% of emergency neurology cases referred to expert neurologists by telemedicine are acute strokes and other neurovascular events. In this narrow collection of diagnoses, it’s been possible to build a reasonable predictive model for hospital returns-on-investment against the costs of imported specialty neurologists. And on that basis, telestroke and teleneurology services have grown, and are demonstrating the values that telemedicine has always seemed to promise but never deliver: efficiency, distribution of talent free of geographic restraints, and real benefits for patients and hospitals.
Not all specialties lend themselves to the financial model that supports teleneurology and telestroke care…But all telemedicine strategies that deliver combined efficiency and quality will eventually find support from a party at-risk for the costs of poor care, and this will spark the attention of telemedicine providers ready to deliver clinical care at a distance. And there will, of course, be technology involved; it will be less expensive than today’s technology; and its reliability will be critical to the effective use of the system, but it will not have started the next push in telemedicine. Finances will drive that. As a model for care, teleneurology has explored interesting ground that will serve as a foundation for other telemedicine specialties. It too has lent some new lessons, and reinforced the importance of some that are old.
