FİZİKSEL TIP VE REHABİLİTASYON HEKİMLERİNDE TELETIPLA İLGİLİ BİLGİ, FARKINDALIK VE ALGI DÜZEYİNİN BELİRLENMESİ

Abstract

GİRİŞ: Teletıp uygulamaları giderek yaygınlaşmaktadır. Bu çalışmadaki amacımız fiziksel tıp uzmanlarının bu konudaki bilgi, farkındalık ve algı düzeylerini ölçmektir. METOT: Bu çalışma, kesitsel bir anket çalışması olarak planlanmıştır. Türkiye'de aktif olarak çalışan fizik tedavi uzmanlarından araştırmacılar tarafından oluşturulan, google docs ile hazırlanan ve e-posta/WhatsApp/Telegram platformları üzerinden paylaşılan anketi doldurmaları istendi. BULGULAR: Anketi 54 kadın (%49,5) ve 55 erkek (%50,5) olmak üzere toplam 109 hekim yanıtlamıştır. Hekimlerin %63.3'ü teletıp'ı kısmen bildiğini belirtmiştir. Uzaktan fizik muayene yapmayı bilen hekimlerin oranı %10.09'du. Hekimlerin en çok üzerinde uzlaştığı dezavantajlar ise malpraktis riskinin artması (%73.4) ve mesleki memnuniyetin azalması (%76.1) idi. Hekimlerin %71,6'sı fiziksel temasın hastalarda güven duygusunu artırdığına ve tedavi başarısını olumlu etkilediğine inanmaktadır. Teletıpta değerlendirilmesi en zor alanlarda ortopedik ve nörolojik rehabilitasyon ön plana çıkmıştır. Nöropatik ağrı, doktorların %36.6'sı ile daha az zorlayıcı bir alan olarak saptandı. SONUÇ: Hekimlerimiz arasında teletıp kavramının içeriği, uygulama alanları, sorumlulukları ve yetki alanları konusunda bilgi eksikliği bulunmaktadır. Hekimlerimiz malpraktis riskinin daha yüksek olduğu bu sistemde mesleki memnuniyetlerinin daha az olacağını düşünmektedirler. Fiziki pratiğinde hekimleri ve hastaları mağdur etmemek için olası engeller iyi analiz edilmeli ve sistem iyi planlanmalıdır. Çalışmamız bu bağlamda yol gösterici olacaktır.

Keywords

• TELETIP
• FİZİKSEL TIP VE REHABİLİTASYON
• FİZİYATRİST

DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE, AWARENESS, AND PERCEPTION OF TELEMEDICINE IN PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION PHYSICIANS

Abstract

Introduction/ objective: Telemedicine applications are becoming increasingly common. Our aim in this study was to measure the knowledge, awareness and perception levels of physiatrists on this subject. Methods: This study was planned as a cross-sectional survey study. Physiatrists actively working in Turkey were asked to fill in the questionnaire created by the researchers, prepared with google docs and shared via email/WhatsApp/Telegram platforms. Results: The questionnaire was answered by a total of 109 physicians, 54 women (49.5%) and 55 men (50.5%). 63.3% of physicians stated that they knew telemedicine partially. Physicians who knew how to remotely apply physical examination was 10.09%. The disadvantages that physicians mostly agreed on were the increase in the risk of malpractice (73.4%) and the decrease in professional satisfaction (76.1%). 71.6% of physicians believe that physical contact increases the feeling of trust in the patients and positively affects the success of the treatment. Orthopedic and neurological rehabilitation came to the fore in the most difficult areas to evaluate in telemedicine. Neuropathic pain was a less challenging area with 36.6% of physicians. Conclusion: There is a lack of knowledge among our physicians about the content, application areas, responsibilities, and jurisdictions of the concept of telemedicine. Our physicians think that their professional satisfaction will be less in this system with a higher malpractice risk. Potential barriers should be analyzed well and the system should be well planned so as not to victimize physicians and patients in physiatry practice. Our study will be a guide in this context.

Keywords

• Telemedicine
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physiatry

References

1. 1. Güler NF, Übeyli ED. Theory and Applications of Telemedicine. Journal of Medical Systems 2002; 26(3): 199-220. doi: 10.1023/A:1015010316958.
2. 2. Ryu S. Telemedicine: Opportunities and Developments in Member States: Report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth 2009 (Global Observatory for eHealth Series, Volume 2). Healthc Inform Res 2012; 18(2): 153-5. 06/30. doi: 10.4258/hir.2012.18.2.153.
3. 3. Ammenwerth E, Gräber S, Herrmann G, Bürkle T, König J. Evaluation of health information systems—problems and challenges. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2003; 71(2): 125-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1386-5056(03)00131-X.
4. 4. Song Y, Bernard L, Jorgensen C, Dusfour G, Pers YM. The Challenges of Telemedicine in Rheumatology. Frontiers in medicine 2021; 8: 746219. 2021/11/02. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.746219.
5. 5. Lee JA, Di Tosto G, McAlearney FA, Miller S, Mezoff E, Venkatesh RD, et al. Physician Perspectives about Telemedicine: Considering the Usability of Telemedicine in Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019. Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition 2021; 73(1): 42-7. 2021/04/20. doi: 10.1097/mpg.0000000000003149.
6. 6. Johnston K, Smith D, Preston R, Evans R, Carlisle K, Lengren J, et al. “From the technology came the idea”: safe implementation and operation of a high quality teleradiology model increasing access to timely breast cancer assessment services for women in rural Australia. BMC Health Services Research 2020; 20(1): 1103. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05922-y.
7. 7. Albarrak AI, Mohammed R, Almarshoud N, Almujalli L, Aljaeed R, Altuwaijiri S, et al. Assessment of physician’s knowledge, perception and willingness of telemedicine in Riyadh region, Saudi Arabia. Journal of Infection and Public Health 2021; 14(1): 97-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2019.04.006.
8. 8. Ayatollahi H, Sarabi FZP, Langarizadeh M. Clinicians' Knowledge and Perception of Telemedicine Technology. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2015; 12(Fall): 1c-c.

9. 9. Telemedicine Applications in a Tertiary Pediatric Hospital in Turkey During COVID-19 Pandemic. Telemedicine and e-Health; 0(0): null. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2020.0381.
10. 10. Dellinger EP, Pellegrini CA, Gallagher TH. The Aging Physician and the Medical Profession: A Review. JAMA surgery 2017; 152(10): 967-71. 2017/07/21. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2342.
11. 11. Laskowski ER, Johnson SE, Shelerud RA, Lee JA, Rabatin AE, Driscoll SW, et al. The Telemedicine Musculoskeletal Examination. Mayo Clinic proceedings 2020; 95(8): 1715-31. 2020/08/06. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.05.026.
12. 12. Iyer S, Shafi K, Lovecchio F, Turner R, Albert TJ, Kim HJ, et al. The Spine Physical Examination Using Telemedicine: Strategies and Best Practices. Global spine journal 2022; 12(1): 8-14. 2020/08/07. doi: 10.1177/2192568220944129.
13. 13. Ramkumar PN, Haeberle HS, Navarro SM, Sultan AA, Mont MA, Ricchetti ET, et al. Mobile technology and telemedicine for shoulder range of motion: validation of a motion-based machine-learning software development kit. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2018; 27(7): 1198-204. 2018/03/12. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.01.013.
14. 14. Bos WH, van Tubergen A, Vonkeman HE. Telemedicine for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic; a positive experience in the Netherlands. Rheumatology international 2021; 41(3): 565-73. 2021/01/16. doi: 10.1007/s00296-020-04771-6.
15. 15. Sahni M, Choudhry J, Mittal A, Bhogal G. Remote Musculoskeletal Consultations: A Survey of General Practitioner Registrars' Level of Confidence, Acceptability, and Management. Cureus 2021; 13(5): e15084. 2021/06/22. doi: 10.7759/cureus.15084.
16. 16. Lee PS, Koo S, Panter S. The value of physical examination in the era of telemedicine. The journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh 2021; 51(1): 85-90. 2021/04/21. doi: 10.4997/jrcpe.2021.122.
17. 17. Chevallard M, Belloli L, Ughi N, Adinolfi A, Casu C, Di Cicco M, et al. Use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with inflammatory arthritis: a retrospective study on feasibility and impact on patient-reported outcomes in a real-life setting. Rheumatology international 2021; 41(7): 1253-61. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04863-x.
18. 18. de la Torre-Díez I, López-Coronado M, Vaca C, Aguado JS, de Castro C. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health 2015; 21(2): 81-5. 12/04. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0053.
19. 19. Buvik A, Bergmo TS, Bugge E, Smaabrekke A, Wilsgaard T, Olsen JA. Cost-Effectiveness of Telemedicine in Remote Orthopedic Consultations: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of medical Internet research 2019; 21(2): e11330. 2019/02/20. doi: 10.2196/11330.
20. 20. Donelan K, Barreto EA, Sossong S, Michael C, Estrada JJ, Cohen AB, et al. Patient and clinician experiences with telehealth for patient follow-up care. The American journal of managed care 2019; 25(1): 40-4. 2019/01/23.
21. 21. Young JD, Borgetti SA, Clapham PJ. Telehealth: exploring the ethical issues. DePaul journal of health care law 2018; 19(3): 2.
22. 22. Nittari G, Khuman R, Baldoni S, Pallotta G, Battineni G, Sirignano A, et al. Telemedicine Practice: Review of the Current Ethical and Legal Challenges. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26(12): 1427-37. 02/12. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2019.0158.
23. 23. Fogel AL, Kvedar JC. Reported Cases of Medical Malpractice in Direct-to-Consumer Telemedicine. JAMA 2019; 321(13): 1309-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0395.
24. 24. Kaplan B. REVISITING HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ETHICAL, LEGAL, and SOCIAL ISSUES and EVALUATION: TELEHEALTH/TELEMEDICINE and COVID-19. Int J Med Inform 2020; 143: 104239. 2020/11/06. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104239.
25. 25. Kumari A, Kaur T, Ranjan P, Chopra S, Sarkar S, Baitha U. Workplace violence against doctors: Characteristics, risk factors, and mitigation strategies. J Postgrad Med 2020; 66(3): 149-54. doi: 10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_96_20.
26. 26. Hacer TY, Ali A. Burnout in physicians who are exposed to workplace violence. Journal of forensic and legal medicine 2020; 69: 101874. 2019/11/02. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2019.101874.
27. 27. Mattson S, Shearer N, Long C. Exploring telehealth opportunities in domestic violence shelters. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners 2002; 14(10): 465-70. 2002/11/13. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7599.2002.tb00077.x.
28. 28. Alhamad R, Suleiman A, Bsisu I, Santarisi A, Al Owaidat A, Sabri A, et al. Violence against physicians in Jordan: An analytical cross-sectional study. PloS one 2021; 16(1): e0245192. 2021/01/26. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245192.
29. 29. Tenforde AS, Hefner JE, Kodish-Wachs JE, Iaccarino MA, Paganoni S. Telehealth in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review. PM R 2017; 9(5s): S51-s8. 2017/05/22. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.02.013.
30. 30. Tenforde AS, Iaccarino MA, Borgstrom H, Hefner JE, Silver J, Ahmed M, et al. Telemedicine During COVID-19 for Outpatient Sports and Musculoskeletal Medicine Physicians. PM R 2020; 12(9): 926-32. 07/10. doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12422.