Ethical assessment of virtual consultation services: application of a practical ethical checklist to direct-to-consumer services in Aotearoa New Zealand
Madeleine Reid 1 , Tania Moerenhout
2 *
1
2
Abstract
Evaluating digital health services from an ethical perspective remains one of the more difficult challenges in telemedicine and health technology assessment. We have previously developed a practical ethical checklist comprising 25 questions covering six ethical themes: privacy, security, and confidentiality; equity; autonomy and informed consent; quality and standards of care; patient empowerment; and continuity of care. The checklist makes ethical analysis more easily accessible to a broader audience, including health care providers, technology developers, and patients.
This project applies the previously developed practical ethical checklist to direct-to-consumer virtual primary care consultation services in Aotearoa New Zealand to conduct an ethical assessment.
We first mapped the available services. The ethical framework was then applied to assess these services based on publicly available information.
Our findings show that the examined virtual consultation services adequately address ethical considerations, particularly regarding patient data privacy and informed consent. We identified areas for improvement in equity, patient empowerment, and continuity of care.
The application of this framework raises fundamental questions on how continuity of care, equity, and comprehensive care can be protected when virtual care becomes more ubiquitous. The checklist can help virtual consultation services identify areas of improvement and ensure they meet ethical criteria, thus contributing to quality of care. The framework may be adapted to other digital health services and tools, providing ethical guidance to technology developers, clinicians, and patients and their whānau (family).
Keywords: clinical ethics, digital health ethics, ethical values, ethical technology assessment, health technology ethics, virtual consultation services, telehealth, telemedicine.
References
1 Hofmann B. Why not integrate ethics in HTA: identification and assessment of the reasons. GMS Health Technol Assess 2014; 10: Doc04.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
2 Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law 2000; 25(6): 1083-120.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
3 Vandemeulebroucke T, Denier Y, Mertens E, et al. Which framework to use? A systematic review of ethical frameworks for the screening or evaluation of health technology innovations. Sci Eng Ethics 2022; 28(3): 26.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
4 Winkler T, Spiekermann S. Twenty years of value sensitive design: a review of methodological practices in VSD projects. Ethics Inf Technol 2021; 23(1): 17-21.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
5 Greenhalgh T, Rosen R, Shaw SE, et al. Planning and evaluating remote consultation services: a new conceptual framework incorporating complexity and practical ethics. Front Digit Health 2021; 3: 726095.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
6 Palm E, Hansson SO. The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technol Forecast Soc Change 2006; 73(5): 543-58.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
7 Nebeker C, Bartlett Ellis RJ, Torous J. Development of a decision-making checklist tool to support technology selection in digital health research. Transl Behav Med 2020; 10(4): 1004-15.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
8 Solanki P, Grundy J, Hussain W. Operationalising ethics in artificial intelligence for healthcare: a framework for AI developers. AI Ethics 2023; 3(1): 223-40.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
9 Heintz E, Lintamo L, Hultcrantz M, et al. Framework for systematic identification of ethical aspects of healthcare technologies: the SBU approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2015; 31(3): 124-30.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
10 Kiran AH, Oudshoorn N, Verbeek P-P. Beyond checklists: toward an ethical-constructive technology assessment. J Responsible Innov 2015; 2(1): 5-19.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
11 Assasi N, Tarride JE, O’Reilly D, et al. Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework. BMC Med Ethics 2016; 17(1): 34.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
12 Reid M, Moerenhout T. Ethical assessment of virtual consultation services: scoping review and development of a practical ethical checklist. J Prim Health Care 2024; 16: in press.
| Google Scholar |
13 Cheng A, Guzman CEV, Duffield TC, et al. Advancing telemedicine within family medicine’s core values. Telemed J E Health 2021; 27(2): 121-3.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
14 Jimenez G, Matchar D, Koh CHG, et al. The role of health technologies in multicomponent primary care interventions: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23(1): e20195.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
15 The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners. Position statement: specialist GP telehealth consultations. Wellington; 2022. https://www.rnzcgp.org.nz/resources/telehealth-resources/specialist-gp-telehealth-consultations-position-statement/
16 Mold F, Hendy J, Lai YL, et al. Electronic consultation in primary care between providers and patients: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform 2019; 7(4): e13042.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
17 O’Cathail M, Sivanandan MA, Diver C, et al. The use of patient-facing teleconsultations in the National Health Service: scoping review. JMIR Med Inform 2020; 8(3): e15380.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
18 Nouri S, Khoong EC, Lyles CR, et al. Addressing equity in telemedicine for chronic disease management during the Covid-19 pandemic. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv 2020; 1(3):.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
19 Wilson G, Currie O, Bidwell S, et al. Empty waiting rooms: the New Zealand general practice experience with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. N Z Med J 2021; 134(1538): 89-101.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |
20 Baker R, Freeman GK, Haggerty JL, et al. Primary medical care continuity and patient mortality: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2020; 70(698): e600-11.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
21 Guthrie B, Saultz JW, Freeman GK, et al. Continuity of care matters. BMJ 2008; 337: a867.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
22 Chan K-S, Wan EY-F, Chin W-Y, et al. Effects of continuity of care on health outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 2021; 22(1): 145.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
23 O’Malley AS, Rich EC. Measuring comprehensiveness of primary care: challenges and opportunities. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30(Suppl 3): 568-75.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
24 Hammersley V, Donaghy E, Parker R, et al. Comparing the content and quality of video, telephone, and face-to-face consultations: a non-randomised, quasi-experimental, exploratory study in UK primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2019; 69(686): e595-604.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
