El profesional de la salud y la telemedicina
Objective: To stablish use, interest and acceptance of telemedicine (Tm) in the field of health professionals in the COVID 19 pandemic. Materials and methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study, developed through a structured, self-administered, anonymous survey, carried out to health personnel. Com...
Guardado en:
| Publicado en: | Revista Médica Universitaria |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://bdigital.uncu.edu.ar/fichas.php?idobjeto=16317 |
| Sumario: | Objective: To stablish use, interest and acceptance of telemedicine (Tm) in the field of health professionals in the COVID 19 pandemic.
Materials and methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study, developed through a structured, self-administered, anonymous survey, carried out to health personnel. Comparative analysis between clinicians and other professionals. Statistical analysis: made with Epi Info, central tendency measures and Fisher exact test. Criterion significance p<0.05.
Results: 105 health professionals were included, 50.5% male, mean age 48.8 years; 97% were doctors. 46% check cell phone immediately upon waking up, 10.5% within half an hour and 6% upon arrival at work; 55% think that Tm brought benefits before pandemic and 30% had not considered it; 55% used technology in doctor-patient relationship. Reasons for not using Tm: 37% despersonalization, 28% lack of experience and 25% due to patient characteristics; 78% change their minds regarding Tm in daily care during the pandemic. Reasons: utility 52%, not to be left out of the system 14%; 26% are concerned about legal use. Best application for Tm: 61.5% consults, 55% interconsultations with other specialists, 19% diagnosis. Preference for virtual communication with patients: Whatsapp 81%, telephone 38.5%, videocall 19%; 72% do not receive remuneration; 60% will continue to use Tm after the pandemic, 24% prefer face-to-face consults. Have two telephones (personal and Tm) 21%. Feels that Tm adds up 55%, solves problems 30%, is enslaving 11.5%; 87.5% think that it will not be discontinued. Comparative analysis: clinicians use Tm in pandemic because they have no other alternative and after this, they have decided not to use it on daily routine (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Tm in pandemic has impregnate profesional practice, overcoming barriers and promoting accessibility. Nevertheless, there is no adequate regulation. However, Tm is here to stay. |
|---|
