Logo image
Back
The impact of telehealth care on escalation to emergency care: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

The impact of telehealth care on escalation to emergency care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Anna M Scott, Sharon Sanders, Tiffany Atkins, Madeleen van der Merwe, Carla Sunner, Justin Clark and Paul Glasziou
Journal of telemedicine and telecare, Vol.31(8), pp.1059-1077
09/2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X241259525
PMID: 38839244
Appears in  Recent Faculty of Health Publications
pdf
The impact of telehealth care on escalation to emergency care3.51 MBDownloadView
Published (Version of record)CC BY V4.0,  Open Access
url
The impact of telehealth care on escalation to emergency careView
Published (Version of record)CC BY V4.0,  Open

Related links

Metrics

1 File views/ downloads
13 Record Views
5 Times Cited - Web of Science

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

Source: InCites

Abstract

telehealth telemedicine emergency care primary care aged care systematic review meta-analysis
Objective: We compared the impact of accessing healthcare (1) by telehealth (via telephone or video) vs face-to-face; and (2) by telephone vs video telehealth care, on escalation to emergency care. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL to 24 July 2023; and conducted a citation analysis on 19 September 2023. We included randomised controlled trials. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Tool 2. We calculated risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean difference for continuous outcomes. Results: Ten trials compared telehealth (five telephone, four video, one both) to face-to-face care. Six were overall low, three some concerns and one high risk of bias. There were no differences between telehealth and face-to-face for visits to the emergency department (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.29), hospitalisations up to 12 months (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.41), deaths or other adverse events. Costs of care were similar, as were patient satisfaction scores. Six trials compared telephone to video telehealth: three were overall low, two some concerns, and one high risk of bias. There were no differences between telephone and video for visits to the emergency department (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.12), hospitalisations (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48), deaths, other adverse events, costs, or patient satisfaction. Healthcare provider satisfaction was high. Results: Ten trials compared telehealth (five telephone, four video, one both) to face-to-face care. Six were overall low, three some concerns and one high risk of bias. There were no differences between telehealth and face-to-face for visits to the emergency department (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.29), hospitalisations up to 12 months (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.41), deaths or other adverse events. Costs of care were similar, as were patient satisfaction scores. Six trials compared telephone to video telehealth: three were overall low, two some concerns, and one high risk of bias. There were no differences between telephone and video for visits to the emergency department (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.12), hospitalisations (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48), deaths, other adverse events, costs, or patient satisfaction. Healthcare provider satisfaction was high. Conclusions: Telehealth care - delivered by telephone or by video - may be an appropriate alternative to face-to-face provision of care, as it does not increase the likelihood of escalation of care to the emergency department for patients in primary care, hospital outpatients, post-discharge patients or residents in aged care.

Details

Logo image