Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Autonomy and Quality of Care in Telehealthcare

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Telemedicine is a complex field including various applications and target groups. Especially telehealthcare is seen by many as a means to revolutionize medicine. It gives patients the opportunity to take charge of their own health by using self-tracking devices and allows health professionals to treat patients from a distance. To some, this means an empowerment of patient autonomy as well as an improvement in the quality of care. Others state the dangers of depersonalization of medicine and the pathologization of daily life. This paper examines the ethical implications of telehealthcare, focusing on patient autonomy and quality of care by analyzing metareviews, randomized controlled trials and narrative ethical analyses on the topic. As a result, we conclude that the technically enhanced encounter between patients and health professionals may mean an empowerment of patient autonomy when it goes along with a personal relationship based on trust, assistance and support. When it comes to the quality of care, telehealthcare may lead to an improvement as long it is adopted to the patient’s individual needs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andreassen, H. K., Trondsen, M., Kummervold, P. E., Gammon, D., & Hjortdahl, P. (2006). Patients who use e-mediated communication with their doctor: New constructions of trust in the patient-doctor relationship. Qualitative Health Research, 16(2), 238–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelboom, G., Camacho, E., Abraham, M. E., Bruce, S. S., Dumont, E. L., et al. (2014). Smart wearable body sensors for patient self-assessment and monitoring. Archives of Public Health. doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-28.

  • Bauer, K. A. (2001). Home-based telemedicine: A survey of ethical issues. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 10(2), 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, A. K., Wykstra, S. L., Yoshinaga, P. D., & Li, T. (2014). Telerehabilitation for people with low vision. Cochrane Database Systematic Review. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. D., Car, J., Pagliari, C., Anandan, C., Cresswell, K., et al. (2011). The impact of ehealth on the quality and safety of health care: A systematic overview. PLoS Med, 8(1), e1000387. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S. M., Roland, M. O., & Buetow, S. A. (2000). Defining quality of care. Social Science and Medicine, 51(11), 1611–1625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conde, J. G., Suvranu, D., Hall, R. W., Johansen, E., Meglan, D., et al. (2010). Telehealth innovations in health education and training. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health, 16(1), 103–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekeland, A. G., Bowes, A., & Flottorp, S. (2010). Effectiveness of telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79, 736–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, V. A., Carter, S. M., Cribb, A., & McCaffery, K. (2010). Supporting patient autonomy: The importance of clinician-patient relationships. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(7), 741–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbrother, P., Ure, J., Hanley, J., McCloughan, L., Denvir, M., et al. (2014). Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: The views of patients and healthcare professionals—A qualitative study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23(1–2), 132–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, G. M., Fishman, I., Edwards, D. A., Shen, S., Kram, C., et al. (2016). Development and patient satisfaction of a new telemedicine service for pain management at Massachusetts General Hospital to the Island of Martha’s Vineyard. Pain Medicine. doi:10.1093/pm/pnw069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, M. I., Koppel, R., & Bar-Lev, S. (2007). Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—an interactive sociotechnical analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14, 542–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennemann-Krause, L., Lopes, A. J., Araújo, J. A., Petersen, E. M., & Nunes, R. A. (2014). The assessment of telemedicine to support outpatient palliative care in advanced cancer. Palliative and Supportive Care, 13(4), 1025–1030. doi:10.1017/S147895151400100X. (Epub 2014 Aug 27).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjelm, N. M. (2005). Benefits and drawbacks of telemedicine. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 11(2), 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, J. M. (2015). Virtual visits—Confronting the challenges of telemedicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 372(18), 1684–1685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehoux, P., Sicotte, C., Denis, J.-L., Berg, M., & Lacroix, A. (2002). The theory of use behind telemedicine: How compatible with physicians’ clinical routines? Social Science and Medicine, 54(6), 889–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. (2013). The digitally engaged patient: Self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Social Theory & Health, 11, 256–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majmudar, M. D., Avancini Colucci, L., & Landman. A. B. (2015). The quantified patient of the future: Opportunities and challenges. Healthcare, 3, 153–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean, S., Sheikh, A., Cresswell, K., Nurmatov, U., Mukherjee, M., et al. (2013). The impact of telehealthcare on the quality and safety of care: A systematic overview. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melton, L., Brewer, B., Kolva, E., Joshi, T., & Bunch, M. (2016). Increasing access to care for young adults with cancer: Results of a quality-improvement project using a novel telemedicine approach to supportive group psychotherapy. Palliative and Supportive Care. doi:10.1017/S1478951516000572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, E. A. (2011). The continuing need to investigate the nature and content of teleconsultation communication using interaction analysis techniques. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 17(2), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mistry, H. (2012). Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 18(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mort, M., May, C. R., & Williams. T. (2003). Remote doctors and absent patients: Acting at a distance in telemedicine? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 28(2), 274–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, A., Schweizer, J., Helms, T. M., Oeff, M., Sprenger, C., et al. (2010). Telemedical support in patients with chronic heart failure: Experience from different projects in Germany. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications. doi:10.1155/2010/181806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, L. M. (2016). The future of the doctor–patient relationship. In J. Brown, L. M. Noble, A. Papageorgiou, & J. Kidd (Eds.), Clinical communication in medicine (pp. 57–64). Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, C., Zare, M., Bin Ahmad, A., Detschew, V., Ammon, D., et al. (2014). Identification of quality parameters for an e-health platform in the federal state of Thuringia in Germany. Journal of Soft Computing and Decision Support Systems, 1(1), 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papshev, D., & Peterson, A. M. (2001). Electronic prescribing in ambulatory practice: Promises, pitfalls, and potential solutions. The American Journal of Managed Care, 7(7), 725–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rörtgen, D., Bergrath, S., Rossaint, R., Beckers, S. K., Fischermann, H., et al. (2013). Comparison of physician staffed emergency teams with paramedic teams assisted by telemedicine—A randomized, controlled simulation study. Resuscitation, 84(1), 85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabesan, S., Allen, D., Caldwell, P., Loh, P. K., Mozer, R., Komesaroff, P. A., et al. (2014). Practical aspects of telehealth: Doctor–patient relationship and communication. Internal Medicine Journal, 44(1), 101–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharon, T. (2016). Self-tracking for health and the quantified self: Re-articulating autonomy, solidarity, and authenticity in an age of personalized healthcare. Philosophy and Technology. doi:10.1007/s13347-016-0215-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slev, V. N., Mistiaen, P., Pasman, H. R., Verdonck-de Leeuwd, I. M., van Uden-Kraane, C. F., et al. (2016). Effects of eHealth for patients and informal caregivers confronted with cancer: A meta-review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 87, 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoljar, N. (2011). Informed consent and relational conceptions of autonomy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 36, 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strube, W., & Steger, F. (2013). Handlungs- und Entscheidungskompetenz. Ethische Ausbildung bei Medizinstudierenden und Pflegeauszubildenden. In F. Steger & R. Hillerbrand (Eds.), Praxisfelder angewandter Ethik. Ethische Orientierung in Medizin, Politik, Technik und Wirtschaft (pp. 21–46). Münster: Mentis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, M. (2012). Health 2050: The realization of personalized medicine through crowdsourcing, the quantified self, and the participatory biocitizen. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 2, 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topol, E. (2012). The creative destruction of medicine: How the digital revolution will create better health care. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topol, E. (2015). The patient will see you now: The future of medicine is in your hands. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vassilev, I., Rowsell, A., Pope, C., Kennedy, A., O’Cathain, A., et al. (2015). Assessing the implementability of telehealth interventions for self-management support: A realist review. Implementation Science. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0238-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, Z., & Lopez, M. S. (2008). Physician acceptance of information technologies: Role of perceived threat to professional autonomy. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 206–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wootton, R. (2012). Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management—An evidence synthesis. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 18(4), 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of the History, Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany

    Giovanni Rubeis, Maximilian Schochow & Florian Steger

Authors
  1. Giovanni Rubeis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maximilian Schochow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florian Steger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Rubeis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rubeis, G., Schochow, M. & Steger, F. Patient Autonomy and Quality of Care in Telehealthcare. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 93–107 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9885-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9885-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation