Administering a Telemedicine Program

  • Luisa TaylorEmail author
  • Heidi Capling
  • Jay M. Portnoy
Telemedicine and Technology (J Portnoy and M Hernandez, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Telemedicine and Technology


Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to describe the process of administering a telemedicine program including reviewing telemedicine guidelines; discussing licensing, credentialing, and privileging of providers; outlining scheduling and recruitment of patients; and measuring outcomes of a telemedicine program.

Recent Findings

Recent literature findings suggest that telemedicine in specialty clinics continues to grow at a rapid pace. Medical specialty programs should prepare to adopt a practice that includes telemedicine to better serve their patients and families who have expressed significant satisfaction with the delivery of healthcare in this manner.


With the appropriate support, any specialty clinic can provide their patients with a telemedicine option which has shown to be highly successful for Children’s Mercy Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology Department.


Telemedicine Telemedicine providers Patient satisfaction Scheduling Licensing 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    ATA. About telemedicine. American Telemedicine Association, Arlington, VA. 2018. Accessed July 2, 2018.
  2. 2.
    •• Shih J, Portnoy J. Tips for seeing patients via telemedicine. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2018;18(10):50. Useful tips on how to see patients using telemedicine. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ATA. Practice guidelines & resources. American Telemedicine Association, Arlington, VA. 2018. Accessed July 5, 2018.
  4. 4.
    •• Elliott T, Shih J, Dinakar C, Portnoy J, Fineman S. American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology position paper on the use of telemedicine for allergists. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017;119(6):512–7. A position statement by the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology on the use of telemedicine for patients with allergic conditions. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilman D. Physician licensure and telemedicine: some competitive issues raised by the prospect of practising globally while regulating locally. J Health Care Law Policy. 2011;14(1):87–117.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kels CG, Kels LH. Portability of licensure and the nation’s health. Mil Med. 2013;178(3):279–84. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Health Resources and Services Administration. Health Licensing Board report to Congress. US Dept of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. 2010. Accessed July 5, 2018.
  8. 8.
    Credentialing and Privileging. National Consortium of TeleHealth Research Centers. 2018. Accessed July 5, 2018.
  9. 9.
    JCAHO. Final revisions to telemedicine standards. Jt Comm Perspect. 2012;32(1):4–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    JCAHO. Proposed standards revisions for direct-to-patient telehealth services. 2017. Accessed Aug 23, 2018.
  11. 11.
    Buck S. Nine human factors contributing to the user acceptance of telemedicine applications: a cognitive-emotional approach. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(2):55–8. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller EA. Telemedicine and doctor-patient communication: a theoretical framework for evaluation. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8(6):311–8. Scholar
  13. 13.
    LeRouge C, Garfield MJ, Collins RW. Telemedicine: technology mediated service relationship, encounter, or something else? Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(9):622–36. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang J-C. Innovative health care delivery system—a questionnaire survey to evaluate the influence of behavioral factors on individuals' acceptance of telecare. Comput Biol Med. 2013;43(4):281–6. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rho MJ, Iy C, Lee J. Predictive factors of telemedicine service acceptance and behavioral intention of physicians. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(8):559–71. Scholar
  16. 16.
    • Liu X, Sawada Y, Takizawa T, Sato H, Sato M, Sakamoto H, et al. Doctor-patient communication: a comparison between telemedicine consultation and face-to-face consultation. Intern Med (Tokyo, Japan). 2007;46(5):227–32 An interesting comparision of characteristics of encounters with patients when seen in person vs. by telemedicine. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heinzelmann PJ, Williams CM, Lugn NE, Kvedar JC. Clinical outcomes associated with telemedicine/telehealth. Telemed J E Health. 2005;11(3):329–47. Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Portnoy JM, Waller M, De Lurgio S, Dinakar C. Telemedicine is as effective as in-person visits for patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2016;117(3):241–5. A study comparing outcomes of asthma management performed in person vs. by telemedicine. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flodgren G, Rachas A, Farmer AJ, Inzitari M, Shepperd S. Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9:CD002098. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Polinski JM, Barker T, Gagliano N, Sussman A, Brennan TA, Shrank WH. Patients’ satisfaction with and preference for telehealth visits. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(3):269–75. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kruse CS, Krowski N, Rodriguez B, Tran L, Vela J, Brooks M. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e016242. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Informatics and TelemedicineChildren’s MercyKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations