Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2023; 40(14): 1521-1528
DOI: 10.1055/a-1656-6363
Original Article

Provider Perspectives on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of Teleneonatology

Jennifer L. Fang
1   Division of Neonatal Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota
,
Rachel Umoren
2   Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington & Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
,
Hilary Whyte
3   Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Jamie Limjoco
4   Division of Neonatology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Abhishek Makkar
5   University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Rosanna Yankanah
3   Division of Neonatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Mike McCoy
5   University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Mark D. Lo
6   Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington & Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington
,
Christopher E. Colby
1   Division of Neonatal Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota
,
Jeph Herrin
7   Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
,
Robert M. Jacobson
8   Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
,
Bart M. Demaerschalk
9   Department of Neurology and Center for Connected Care, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Scottsdale, Arizona
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective We aimed to measure provider perspectives on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and community hospitals.

Study Design Providers from five academic tertiary NICUs and 27 community hospitals were surveyed using validated implementation measures to assess the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology. For each of the 12 statements, scale values ranged from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater positive perceptions. Survey results were summarized, and differences across respondents assessed using generalized linear models.

Results The survey response rate was 56% (203/365). Respondents found teleneonatology to be acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. The percent of respondents who agreed with each of the twelve statements ranged from 88.6 to 99.0%, with mean scores of 4.4 to 4.7 and median scores of 4.0 to 5.0. There was no difference in the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of teleneonatology when analyzed by professional role, years of experience in neonatal care, or years of teleneonatology experience. Respondents from Level I well newborn nurseries had greater positive perceptions of teleneonatology than those from Level II special care nurseries.

Conclusion Providers in tertiary NICUs and community hospitals perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for their practices. The wide acceptance by providers of all roles and levels of experience likely demonstrates a broad receptiveness to telemedicine as a tool to deliver neonatal care, particularly in rural communities where specialists are unavailable.

Key Points

  • Neonatal care providers perceive teleneonatology to be highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible.

  • Perceptions of teleneonatology do not differ based on professional role or years of experience.

  • Perceptions of teleneonatology are especially high in smaller hospitals with well newborn nurseries.

Keywords

implementation science - telemedicine - newborn - feasibility - teleneonatology

Authors' Contributions

J.L.F. conceptualized and designed the study, designed the data collection instruments, coordinated and supervised data collection, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. R.U. collected data, drafted the initial manuscript, and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. H.W, J.L., A.M., M.D.L., R.Y., and M.M. collected data and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript. J.H. conceptualized and designed the study, performed the analyses, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. C.E.C. conceptualized the study and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. R.M.J. conceptualized and designed the study and critically reviewed and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. B.M.D. conceptualized and designed the study, supervised data collection, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 05 May 2021

Accepted: 26 September 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
28 September 2021

Article published online:
23 November 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R. et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011; 38 (02) 65-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C. et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci 2017; 12 (01) 108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wagner KL, Schafer DJ. Using telemedicine to provide safe care when birth occurs in the emergency department. J Obstet Gynecol Neonat Nurs 2016; 45 (03) S11-S12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fang JL, Collura CA, Johnson RV. et al. Emergency video telemedicine consultation for newborn resuscitations: the Mayo clinic experience. Mayo Clin Proc 2016; 91 (12) 1735-1743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Scheans P. Telemedicine for neonatal resuscitation. Neonatal Netw 2014; 33 (05) 283-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hall RW, Hall-Barrow J, Garcia-Rill E. Neonatal regionalization through telemedicine using a community-based research and education core facility. Ethn Dis 2010; 20 (1, suppl 1): S1-S136, 40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Herendeen NE, Schaefer GB. Practical applications of telemedicine for pediatricians. Pediatr Ann 2009; 38 (10) 567-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dharmar M, Smith AC, Armfield NR, Trujano J, Sadorra C, Marcin JP. Telemedicine for children in need of intensive care. Pediatr Ann 2009; 38 (10) 562-566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hoffman AM, Lapcharoensap W, Huynh T, Lund K. Historical perspectives: telemedicine in neonatology. Neoreviews 2019; 20 (03) e113-e123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 McSwain SD, Marcin JP. Telemedicine for the care of children in the hospital setting. Pediatr Ann 2014; 43 (02) e44-e49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fang JL, Campbell MS, Weaver AL. et al. The impact of telemedicine on the quality of newborn resuscitation: a retrospective study. Resuscitation 2018; 125: 48-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Haynes SC, Dharmar M, Hill BC. et al. The impact of telemedicine on transfer rates of newborns at rural community hospitals. Acad Pediatr 2020; 20 (05) 636-641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Albritton J, Maddox L, Dalto J, Ridout E, Minton S. The effect of a newborn telehealth program on transfers avoided: a multiple-baseline study. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018; 37 (12) 1990-1996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Asiedu GB, Fang JL, Harris AM, Colby CE, Carroll K. Health care professionals' perspectives on teleneonatology through the lens of normalization process theory. Health Sci Rep 2019; 2 (02) e111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fang JL, Asiedu GB, Harris AM, Carroll K, Colby CE. A mixed-methods study on the barriers and facilitators of telemedicine for newborn resuscitation. Telemed J E Health 2018; 24 (10) 811-817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus And Newborn. Levels of neonatal care. Pediatrics 2012; 130 (03) 587-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Provincial Council for Maternal and Child Health. Standardized Maternal and Newborn Levels of Care Definitions. Published 2013. Accessed April 5, 2021 at: https://www.pcmch.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Level-of-Care-Guidelines-2011-Updated-August1-20131.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gadhia R, Schwamm LH, Viswanathan A, Whitney C, Moreno A, Zachrison KS. Evaluation of the experience of spoke hospitals in an academic telestroke network. Telemed J E Health 2019; 25 (07) 584-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Moeckli J, Cram P, Cunningham C, Reisinger HS. Staff acceptance of a telemedicine intensive care unit program: a qualitative study. J Crit Care 2013; 28 (06) 890-901
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Young LB, Chan PS, Cram P. Staff acceptance of tele-ICU coverage: a systematic review. Chest 2011; 139 (02) 279-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Heath B, Salerno R, Hopkins A, Hertzig J, Caputo M. Pediatric critical care telemedicine in rural underserved emergency departments. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2009; 10 (05) 588-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ward MM, Ullrich F, Potter AJ, MacKinney AC, Kappel S, Mueller KJ. Factors affecting staff perceptions of tele-ICU service in rural hospitals. Telemed J E Health 2015; 21 (06) 459-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4: 50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Harvey JB, Yeager BE, Cramer C, Wheeler D, McSwain SD. The impact of telemedicine on pediatric critical care triage. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017; 18 (11) e555-e560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hernandez M, Hojman N, Sadorra C. et al. Pediatric critical care telemedicine program: a single institution review. Telemed J E Health 2016; 22 (01) 51-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Keilman AE, Umoren R, Lo M. et al. Virtual protective equipment: paediatric resuscitation in the COVID-19 era. BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn 2020; (e-pub ahead of print) DOI: 10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000658.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Umoren RA, Gray MM, Handley S. et al. In-Hospital telehealth supports care for neonatal patients in strict isolation. Am J Perinatol 2020; 37 (08) 857-860
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Alexander GC, Tajanlangit M, Heyward J, Mansour O, Qato DM, Stafford RS. Use and content of primary care office-based vs telemedicine care visits during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (10) e2021476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mann DM, Chen J, Chunara R, Testa PA, Nov O. COVID-19 transforms health care through telemedicine: evidence from the field. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020; 27 (07) 1132-1135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Punia V, Nasr G, Zagorski V. et al. Evidence of a rapid shift in outpatient practice during the COVID-19 pandemic using telemedicine. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26 (10) 1301-1303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lonergan PE, Washington Iii SL, Branagan L. et al. Rapid utilization of telehealth in a comprehensive cancer center as a response to COVID-19: cross-sectional analysis. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (07) e19322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bhaskar S, Bradley S, Chattu VK. et al. Telemedicine Across the Globe-Position Paper From the COVID-19 Pandemic Health System Resilience PROGRAM (REPROGRAM) International Consortium. (Part 1). Front Public Health 2020; 8: 556720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Charrier N, Zarca K, Durand-Zaleski I, Calinaud C. ARS Ile de France telemedicine group. Efficacy and cost effectiveness of telemedicine for improving access to care in the Paris region: study protocols for eight trials. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16 (44) 45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Armfield NR, Donovan T, Bensink ME, Smith AC. The costs and potential savings of telemedicine for acute care neonatal consultation: preliminary findings. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18 (08) 429-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Johnson TP, Wislar JS. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA 2012; 307 (17) 1805-1806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Voigt LF, Koepsell TD, Daling JR. Characteristics of telephone survey respondents according to willingness to participate. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157 (01) 66-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar