Despite significant efforts, the COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous pressure on health care systems around the world, threatening the quality of patient care. Telemonitoring offers the opportunity to carefully monitor patients with a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 from home and allows for the timely identification of worsening symptoms. Additionally, it may decrease the number of hospital visits and admissions, thereby reducing the use of scarce resources, optimizing health care capacity, and minimizing the risk of viral transmission. In this paper, we present a COVID-19 telemonitoring care pathway developed at a tertiary care hospital in the Netherlands, which combined the monitoring of vital parameters with video consultations for adequate clinical assessment. Additionally, we report a series of medical, scientific, organizational, and ethical recommendations that may be used as a guide for the design and implementation of telemonitoring pathways for COVID-19 and other diseases worldwide.

No abstract

Objective To evaluate the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines for the management of depression globally. Methods We conducted a systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of depression in adults with major depressive or bipolar disorder. For each identified guideline, we assessed compliance with measures of guideline development quality (such as transparency in guideline development processes and funding, multidisciplinary author group composition, systematic review of comparative efficacy research) and implementation (such as quality indicators). We compared guidelines from low- and middle-income countries with those from high-income countries. Findings We identified 82 national and 13 international clinical practice guidelines from 83 countries in 27 languages. Guideline development processes and funding sources were explicitly specified in a smaller proportion of guidelines from low- and middle-income countries (8/29; 28%) relative to high-income countries (35/58; 60%). Fewer guidelines (2/29; 7%) from low- and middle-income countries, relative to high-income countries (22/58; 38%), were authored by a multidisciplinary development group. A systematic review of comparative effectiveness was conducted in 31% (9/29) of low- and middle-income country guidelines versus 71% (41/58) of high-income country guidelines. Only 10% (3/29) of low- and middle-income country and 19% (11/58) of high-income country guidelines described plans to assess quality indicators or recommendation adherence. Conclusion Globally, guideline implementation is inadequately planned, reported and measured. Narrowing disparities in the development and implementation of guidelines in low- and middle-income countries is a priority. Future guidelines should present strategies to implement recommendations and measure feasibility, cost–effectiveness and impact on health outcomes.

No abstract

Background Implementation of digital health (eHealth) generally involves adapting pre-established and carefully considered processes or routines, and still raises multiple ethical and legal dilemmas. This study aimed to identify challenges regarding responsibility and liability when prescribing digital health in clinical practice. This was part of an overarching project aiming to explore the most pressing ethical and legal obstacles regarding the implementation and adoption of digital health in the Netherlands, and to propose actionable solutions. Methods A series of multidisciplinary focus groups with stakeholders who have relevant digital health expertise were analysed through thematic analysis. Results The emerging general theme was ‘uncertainty regarding responsibilities’ when adopting digital health. Key dilemmas take place in clinical settings and within the doctor-patient relationship (‘professional digital health’). This context is particularly challenging because different stakeholders interact. In the absence of appropriate legal frameworks and codes of conduct tailored to digital health, physicians’ responsibility is to be found in their general duty of care. In other words: to do what is best for patients (not causing harm and doing good). Professional organisations could take a leading role to provide more clarity with respect to physicians’ responsibility, by developing guidance describing physicians’ duty of care in the context of digital health, and to address the resulting responsibilities. Conclusions Although legal frameworks governing medical practice describe core ethical principles, rights and obligations of physicians, they do not suffice to clarify their responsibilities in the setting of professional digital health. Here we present a series of recommendations to provide more clarity in this respect, offering the opportunity to improve quality of care and patients’ health. The recommendations can be used as a starting point to develop professional guidance and have the potential to be adapted to other healthcare professionals and systems.