Internet based consultations to transfer knowledge for patients requiring specialised care: Retrospective case review

British Medical Journal

Volumn 326, Issue 7391, 2003, Pages 696-699

  Kedar, Iris ^a   Ternullo, Joseph L ^a   Weinrib, Carol E ^a   Kelleher, Kathleen M ^a   Brandling Bennett, Heather ^a   Kvedar, Joseph C ^a  

^a Partners Telemedicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER THERAPY; CONSULTATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; HOSPITAL PHYSICIAN; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT REFERRAL; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TEACHING HOSPITAL; TREATMENT INDICATION; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 0037471882     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7391.696     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. O'Connor GT, Quínton HB, Traven ND, Ramunno LD, Dodds AT, Marciniak TA, et al. Geographic variation in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: the cooperative cardiovascular project. JAMA 1999;281:627-33.
2. Birkmeyer JD, Sharp SM, Finlayson SR, Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. Variation profiles of common surgical procedures. Surgery 1998;124:917-23.
3. Wrobel JS, Mayfield JA, Reiber GE. Geographic variation of lower-extremity major amputation in individuals with and without diabetes in the medicare population. Diabetes Care 2001;24:860-4.
4. Wennberg JE, Cooper MM, ed. The Dartmouth atlas of health care 1998. Chicago: American Hospital Publishing, 1998.
5. California HealthCare Foundation. Variations in medical practice. The quality initiative. Jan 2000. www.chcforg/documents/quality/variations.pdf (accessed 1 Sept, 2002.)
6. Hunt DL. Overcoming the evidence-to-application gap in clinical practice [editorial]. Evidence-based Cardiovasc Med 2001;5:34-5.
7. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions: how internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 22 Mar 2002. www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=59 (accessed 1 Sept, 2002.)
8. McNeill KM, Weinstein RS, Holcomb MJ. Arizona telemedicine program: implementing a statewide health care network. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5:441-7.
9. Krupinski EA, McNeill K, Ovitt TW, Alden S, Holcomb M. Patterns of use and satisfaction with a university-based teleradiology system. J Digit Imaging 1999;12:166-7.
10. Vassallo DJ, Hoque F, Farquharson Roberts M, Patterson V, Swinfen P, Swinfen R. An evaluation of the first year's experience with a low-cost telemedicine link in Bangladesh. J Telemed Telecare 2001;7:125-38.
11. Person DA. Pacific Island Health Care Project: early experiences with a web-based consultation and referral network. Pacific Health Dialog 2000;7:29-35.
12. Shannon G, Nesbitt T, Bakalar R, Kratochwill E, Kvedar J, Vargas L. Organizational models of telemedicine and regional telemedicine networks. Telemed J e-Health 2002;8:61-70.
13. Krouz JD. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer 1999;86:2426-35.
14. US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Office of the Advancement of Telehealth. 2001 Telemedicine Report to Congress. Jan 2001. telehealth.hrsa.gov/pubs/report2001/main.htm (accessed 1 Sept, 2002.)
15. Simon V. Insurance coverage of telemedicine grows, but payments subject to limits. Physician Compensation Rep 2002;3:1-3.