The current coronavirus pandemic is again reminding us of the importance of using telehealth to deliver care, especially as means of reducing the risk of cross-contamination caused by close contact. For telehealth to be effective as part of an emergency response it first needs to become a routinely used part of our health system. Hence, it is time to step back and ask why telehealth is not mainstreamed. In this article, we highlight key requirements for this to occur. Strategies to ensure that telehealth is used regularly in acute, post-acute and emergency situations, alongside conventional service delivery methods, include flexible funding arrangements, training and accrediting our health workforce. Telehealth uptake also requires a significant change in management effort and the redesign of existing models of care. Implementing telehealth proactively rather than reactively is more likely to generate greater benefits in the longterm, and help with the everyday (and emergency) challenges in healthcare.

The current coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has resulted in tremendous growth in telehealth services in Australia and around the world. The rapid uptake of telehealth has mainly been due to necessity – following social distancing requirements and the need to reduce the risk of transmission. Although telehealth has been available for many decades, the COVID-19 experience has resulted in heightened awareness of telehealth amongst health service providers, patients and society overall. With increased telehealth uptake in many jurisdictions during the pandemic, it is timely and important to consider what role telehealth will have post-pandemic. In this article, we highlight five key requirements for the long-term sustainability of telehealth. These include: (a) developing a skilled workforce; (b) empowering consumers; (c) reforming funding; (d) improving the digital ecosystems; and (e) integrating telehealth into routine care.

In March 2020, the Australian Government added new temporary telehealth services to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) to reduce the risk of patient–patient and patient–clinician transmission of the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19). Here, the MBS statistics for general practitioner activity and the associated costs are described; a small increase in both activity and costs for the new MBS telehealth items were observed. The opportunities for future research and policy implications are also discussed.

Introduction To promote telehealth implementation and uptake, it is important to assess overall clinical effectiveness to ensure any changes will not adversely affect patient outcomes. The last systematic literature review examining telehealth effectiveness was conducted in 2010. Given the increasing use of telehealth and technological developments in the field, a more contemporary review has been carried out. The aim of this review was to synthesise recent evidence associated with the clinical effectiveness of telehealth services. Methods A systematic search of ‘Pretty Darn Quick’-Evidence portal was carried out in November 2020 for systematic reviews on telehealth, where the primary outcome measure reported was clinical effectiveness. Due to the volume of telehealth articles, only systematic reviews with meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2019 were included in the analysis. Results We found 38 meta-analyses, covering 10 medical disciplines: cardiovascular disease ( n = 3), dermatology ( n = 1), endocrinology ( n = 13), neurology ( n = 4), nephrology ( n = 2), obstetrics ( n = 1), ophthalmology ( n = 1), psychiatry and psychology ( n = 7), pulmonary ( n = 4) and multidisciplinary care ( n = 2). The evidence showed that for all disciplines, telehealth across a range of modalities was as effective, if not more, than usual care. Discussion This review demonstrates that telehealth can be equivalent or more clinically effective when compared to usual care. However, the available evidence is very discipline specific, which highlights the need for more clinical effectiveness studies involving telehealth across a wider spectrum of clinical health services. The findings from this review support the view that in the right context, telehealth will not compromise the effectiveness of clinical care when compared with conventional forms of health service delivery.

BackgroundPrimary care providers have been rapidly transitioning from in-person to telehealth care during the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. There is an opportunity for new research in a rapidly evolving area, where evidence for telehealth services in primary care in the Australian setting remains limited.AimTo explore general practitioner (GP) perceptions on providing telehealth (telephone and videoconsultation) services in primary care in Australia.Design & settingA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to gain an understanding of GP perceptions on telehealth use in Australia.MethodsGPs across Australia were purposively sampled. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim for analysis. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis to identify initial codes, which were then organised into themes.ResultsFourteen GPs were interviewed. Two major themes that described GP perceptions of telehealth were 1) Existence of business and financial pressures in general practice and 2) providing quality of care in Australia. These two themes interacted with four minor themes: 3) consumer-led care, 4) COVID-19 as a driver for telehealth reimbursement and adoption, 5) refining logistical processes and 6) GP experiences shape telehealth use.ConclusionThis study found that multiple considerations influence GP choice of in-person, videoconference, or telephone consultation mode. For telehealth to be used routinely within primary care settings, evidence that supports the delivery of higher quality care to patients through telehealth and sustainable funding models will be required.