A New Era of Descriptive Diagnosis
In the generation of instant communication, the new field of telemedicine is looking to transform the modern doctor/patient relationship. A 2016 article by Melinda Beck for the Wall Street Journal examines this transformation, citing things such as the internet, at home medical monitors, and video chat as a few of the things responsible for this shift. These technological advances allow for doctors as well as patients to communicate instantaneously and globally; what began as a necessity for hospitals without access to the best care is now expanding to average consumers.
Beck explains that telemedicine, defined by Merriam-Webster as “the practice of medicine when the doctor and patient are widely separated using two-way voice and visual communication (as by satellite or computer)”, is used commonly by organizations like Doctors Without Borders to communicate health issues in under served areas and countries with doctors at larger hospitals or in certain specialties. In one case cited by Beck, a telemedical ICU program run by Mercy health systems has seen the number of ICU deaths decrease by 30% of the anticipated number. Despite this success, however, telemedicine is a relatively new and unknown field to individual consumers; though nearly 75% of large employers offered virtual care as a benefit last year, concerns about the services linger among both consumers and researchers.
Beck also notes that like any internet based service, telemedicine has both good websites and bad. Accreditation programs and ethical guidelines have been put in place for this reason, but as always there is some degree of concern for patients giving up such personal information. Some websites exist within the gray area of “practicing medicine;” consultations are called “interactions” in fine print, and doctors consulted are often not based in the United States and thus not certified. Because of this, many of the large insurance providers are creating their own formats for virtual doctor’s visits, skipping this middle man entirely.
I find that this article gives insight on how telemedicine is a different kind of WebMD, often driven by descriptions given by patients; unless the issue is dermatological, it is nearly impossible to send photos or to use a video chat effectively. There are hundreds of words one could use to describe pain, all of which have different connotations and insights; how, then, can doctors know which word is correct? How can doctors know exactly where it hurts if there is no physical patient in front of them to examine? Is the pain in the patient’s side near their chest? Their abdomen? These are question which patients, being untrained in the medical profession, struggle to answer.
But the good effects, the doctor-to-doctor communication, the quick and relatively inexpensive opinion on a new rash or a sore throat, create a column of pro’s nearly as extensive (and some would say even more so) than the column of con’s. Though telemedicine appears on its surface to be nothing more than a reincarnation of the era of doctors diagnosing without examinations, in reality it would seem to be an advancement which, in conjunction with traditional modern doctor’s visits, will have a positive affect on healthcare.
