In comparison with almost universal adoption of telephony and mobile technologies in modern\nday healthcare, video conferencing has yet to become a ubiquitous clinical tool. Currently telehealth\nservices are faced with a bewildering range of video conferencing software and hardware\nchoices. This paper provides a case study in the selection of video conferencing services by the\nFlinders University Telehealth in the Home trial (FTH Trial) to support healthcare in the home.\nUsing pragmatic methods, video conferencing solutions available on the market were assessed for\nusability, reliability, cost, compatibility, interoperability, performance and privacy considerations.\nThe process of elimination through which the eventual solution was chosen, the selection criteria\nused for each requirement and the corresponding results are described. The resulting product set,\nalthough functional, had restricted ability to directly connect with systems used by healthcare\nproviders elsewhere in the system. This outcome illustrates the impact on one small telehealth\nprovider of the broader struggles between competing video conferencing vendors. At stake is the\nability to communicate between healthcare organizations and provide public access to healthcare.\nComparison of the current state of the video conferencing market place with the evolution of the\ntelephony system reveals that video conferencing still has a long way to go before it can be considered\nas easy to use as the telephone. Health organizations that are concerned to improve access\nand quality of care should seek to influence greater standardization and interoperability though\ncooperation with one another, the private sector, international organizations and by encouraging\ngovernments to play a more active role in this sphere.
Loading....