Psychiatr Serv 51:1305-1307, October 2000
© 2000 American Psychiatric Association
Satisfaction of Forensic Psychiatric Patients With Remote Telepsychiatric Evaluation
Benjamin B. Brodey, M.D., M.P.H.,
Keith H. Claypoole, Ph.D.,
Jeffrey Motto, R.N., M.A.,
Robert G. Arias, Ph.D. and
Richard Goss, M.D., M.P.H.
|
Abstract
|
The level of satisfaction with telepsychiatry evaluations was determined in a sample of 43 forensic psychiatric patient inmates in a large urban jail. A forensic psychiatrist interviewed 20 patients in person, the other 23 remotely via interactive video. Demographic characteristics, physical health status, and psychiatric symptom severity on the Global Severity Index of the Brief Symptom Inventory were comparable in the two groups. Patient satisfaction with the evaluations was moderately high for patients in both groups, with no significant differences between them.
|
Introduction
|
According to a recent publication from the U.S. Department of Justice, more than 10 percent of the total prison population are mentally ill (1). Correctional facilities find it difficult either to arrange for clinicians to visit mentally ill inmates or to transport inmates for routine mental health care (2). Telepsychiatry—the use of telemedicine technology for delivering psychiatric services—potentially eliminates these obstacles.
Recent investigations have strongly supported telepsychiatry's efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and high diagnostic reliability (3,4,5). It offers a possible solution to the problem of the "grossly unequal geographic distribution of health care manpower and resources" (6). However, less is known about patients' perceptions of the telepsychiatric approach compared with traditional, in-person psychiatric consultations.
The primary objective of this study was to compare satisfaction levels of forensic psychiatric patients receiving remotely conducted psychiatric evaluations with those of forensic psychiatric patients receiving similar but in-person evaluations.
|
Methods
|
The study was conducted during June, July, and August 1997 with 43 forensic psychiatric patient inmates from the general population of the King County Correctional Facility, a large urban jail in Seattle. The patients ranged in age from 20 to 57. Medications had not been prescribed for 12 patients (28 percent). Of those who were on medications, 15 (48 percent) were taking antidepressants, 12 (39 percent) mood stabilizers, seven (23 percent) antipsychotics, and four (13 percent) anxiolytics. Some patients were taking more than one medication.
On alternating weeks over a ten-week period, evaluations were performed either by remote interactive video or in person. Twenty patients participated in an in-person evaluation; the other 23 underwent a remote evaluation. The same psychiatrist interviewed all subjects to minimize variance between treatment conditions. One additional patient, who declined the remote evaluation, preferred to be evaluated in person; the results of this evaluation were excluded from the study.
The remote evaluations were conducted using a V-Tel work station running on a personal computer. This real-time interactive audio and video system was transmitted at 384 kilobytes per second. Patients viewed the evaluating psychiatrist on a 13-inch color monitor. At the remote hospital site, Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, the evaluating psychiatrist viewed each patient on a 27-inch monitor with a picture-in-a-picture feature, which provided a full-body image of the patient.
As a measure of comparability of cases and severity of psychiatric symptomatology, the Brief Symptom Inventory was administered to each patient in written format before the evaluation. This survey instrument contains 53 psychiatric symptom-related questions rated on a scale of 0 to 4. From these scores, a Global Severity Index (GSI), a measure that has demonstrated high reliability in classifying overall psychiatric symptom severity (7), was calculated.
Immediately after either a remote or an in-person evaluation, each subject completed a visit-specific patient satisfaction survey called the Group Health Association of America Consumer Satisfaction Survey (8). This structured outpatient questionnaire examines a subject's perception of the evaluator and overall satisfaction level with the evaluation. It includes one question rating general health.
Two-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate differences between the two groups in age, general physical health ratings, the GSI, and the scores on the six patient-acceptance and patient-satisfaction questions. Data were presented as means and standard deviations, and comparisons with a probability level of less than .05 were considered statistically significant.
|
Results
|
As Table 1 shows, GSI scores, gender, age, and ratings of self-reported general physical health were all comparable for the two groups. The range of GSI scores was .67 to 1.47 for the remote group and .67 to 1.28 for the in-person group. Neither set of GSI scores contained outliers or indicated severe psychiatric symptoms. The mean GSI scores of the patients evaluated remotely (1.01±.26) and those evaluated in person (.93±.19) were comparable to published norms of the average psychiatric outpatient population (mean for males=1.15; mean for females=1.35) (7). Furthermore, they were well above the average GSI for nonpatients (mean for males =.18; mean for females =.24).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Characteristics and satisfaction ratings of 43 forensic pstchiatric patients evaluated by telepsychiatry or in-person interviews
|
The two groups rated their overall level of satisfaction with the psychiatric evaluation nearly identically; ratings averaged midway between good and very good. The overall mean group differences in responses to the questions were uniformly less than .5 on a 1-to-5 scale. The in-person group tended to rate the psychiatrist's explanation as better than the remote group did, although the difference was not significant. The question "Would you recommend this evaluator to your family and friends?" received the lowest rating (least satisfaction) of all six satisfaction questions for both groups.
|
Discussion
|
The results indicate that the remote interviews were generally acceptable to patients. Of the 24 patients asked to participate in the study, only one declined. This is important because patients were offered the remote interviews in the course of routine care without any incentives. They were told that they had the opportunity to receive an in-person interview if they did not wish to participate in the remote interview. It is possible that the novelty of being on television increased patient interest, but whether such feelings will have lasting effects on acceptability cannot be predicted.
Satisfaction rates did not differ significantly between the two types of evaluation. Compared with the in-person group, the group interviewed remotely tended to rate the psychiatrist's explanation of the evaluation somewhat lower, although the two groups showed no differences in their perception of the psychiatrist's professional or technical skill. Despite relatively high satisfaction scores, both groups indicated that they would not highly recommend the psychiatrist to a family member or friend. It is possible that this result is due to their status as incarcerated inmates.
An additional finding of the study is that despite the relatively slow transmission speed of the remote interviews, the interviewing psychiatrist felt comfortable with his ability to diagnose remotely. This result suggests that clinicians who gain expertise in telepsychiatry will be able to use the medium to diagnose patients effectively. It also suggests that the utility of telepsychiatry may be applicable to large groups of patients who are underserved by mental health specialists, particularly psychiatrists.
With the increasing size of the inmate population, including the large proportion of inmates with mental illness, our findings may help to support the integration of telepsychiatry into underserved jail and prison populations. Continued evaluation of the reliability and suitability of telepsychiatry in psychiatric evaluation is needed, along with a determination of the circumstances and populations in which it can be used most effectively without compromising the quality of psychiatric care.
The study results should be interpreted with caution. Although particular care was taken in maintaining a natural sample selection, it was not practically possible to obtain a perfectly randomized match between the two groups. The results may not be generalizable to other psychiatric inmate patient populations or to those who exhibit more severe psychiatric disturbances.
|
Acknowledgments
|
This project was made possible by the support of the King County Department of Health and the Virginia Mason Medical Center. The authors thank Wayne Katon, M.D., who provided advice on methodologic issues.
|
Footnotes
|
Dr. Brodey is clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and Dr. Goss is clinical assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of Washington Medical School. Dr. Claypoole is with the University of Hawaii and the Hawaii Department of Health in Kuaii. Mr. Motto is telemedicine coordinator at the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle. Dr. Arias is a postdoctoral fellow in neuropsychology in the department of behavioral medicine and psychiatry at West Virginia University School of Medicine. Address correspondences to Dr. Brodey at 4558 Fourth Avenue, N.E., Seattle, Washington 98105-4813 (e-mail, brodey{at}u.washington.edu).
|
References
|
-
Ditton P: Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. Edited by Dorsey T, Hester T. Washington, DC, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 1999
-
Baer L, Cukor P, Coyle JT: Telepsychiatry: application of telemedicine to psychiatry, in Telemedicine: Theory and Practice. Edited by Bashshur RL, Sanders JH, Shannon GW. Springfield, Ill, Thomas, 1997
-
Ruskin PE, Reed S, Kumar R, et al: Reliability and acceptability of psychiatric diagnoses via telecommunication and audiovisual technology. Psychiatric Services 49:1086-1088, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Baigent MF, Lloyd CJ, Kavanagh SJ, et al: Telepsychiatry: "tele" yes, but what about the "psychiatry"? Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 3:3-5, 1997
-
Baer L, Cukor P, Jenike MA, et al: Pilot study of telemedicine for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry 152:1383-1385, 1995[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Preston J, Brown FW, Hartley B: Using telemedicine to improve health care in distant areas. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 43:25-32, 1992[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Boulet J, Boss MW: Reliability and validity of the Brief Symptom Inventory. Psychological Assessment 3:433-437, 1991
-
Davies AR, Ware JE: GHAA Consumer Satisfaction Survey and User's Manual. Washington, DC, Group Health Association of America, 1991
-
Rubin HR, Gandek B, Rogers W, et al: Patients' ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings. JAMA 270:835-840, 1993[Abstract]
-
Ware JE, Hays RD: Methods for measuring patient satisfaction. Medical Care 26:393-402, 1988[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
G. M. Manguno-Mire, J. W. Thompson Jr, J. H. Shore, C. D. Croy, J. F. Artecona, and J. W. Pickering
The Use of Telemedicine to Evaluate Competency to Stand Trial: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Study
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law,
December 1, 2007;
35(4):
481 - 489.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. K. Ax, T. J. Fagan, P. R. Magaletta, R. D. Morgan, D. Nussbaum, and T. W. White
Innovations in Correctional Assessment and Treatment
Criminal Justice and Behavior,
July 1, 2007;
34(7):
893 - 905.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Jones, S. Leonard, and L. Birmingham
Setting up a telepsychiatry service
Psychiatr. Bull.,
December 1, 2006;
30(12):
464 - 467.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. R. Doarn, D. Justis, M. S. Chaudhri, and R. C. Merrell
Integration of Telemedicine Practice Into Correctional Medicine: An Evolving Standard
Journal of Correctional Health Care,
April 1, 2005;
11(3):
253 - 270.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Monnier, R. G. Knapp, and B. C. Frueh
Recent Advances in Telepsychiatry: An Updated Review
Psychiatr Serv,
December 1, 2003;
54(12):
1604 - 1609.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
Get information about faster international access.
Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2000
American Psychiatric Association.
All rights reserved.
Home
| Search
| Current Issue
| Past Issues
| Subscribe
| All APPI Journals
| Help
| Contact Us
|
TOP
Abstract
Introduction
