Health and Technology

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 659–678 | Cite as

Quality assessment of a second opinion telemedicine service

  • Yiannis NikolaidisEmail author
  • George Efthymiadis
  • Pantelis Angelidis
Review Paper


The use of technology advancements and telemedicine has definitely contributed to reducing the communication gap between patients and doctors. Lately, a telemedicine program is applied in Greece aiming at the improvement of primary health services offered to Greek citizens, especially of remote and rural areas. The program is supported by the Greek National Health Service, while it is fully funded and run by Vodafone Greece. Vodafone offers doctors of 100 remote areas of continental Greece and Greek islands, portable medical equipment, supplies, electronic equipment and internet access to enable them to monitor their patients. It also offers them potential advisory support from doctors of the Athens Medical Center. The differentiation of this program from the vast majority of others lies in the fact that the end-user of the program is not the patients themselves. In accordance with the will of Vodafone to evaluate and improve, if necessary, the telemedicine services provided, we carried out a field research, the results of which are presented in what follows. Our objective was not only to find out the overall degree of satisfaction of both the participating doctors and patients, but also to compare their views. Overall, participants admitted that Vodafone Telemedicine Program results in more efficient primary healthcare services and improves the patients’ quality of life. The degree of satisfaction of both the involved doctors and patients is very high and everyone wishes the continuation or, even better, the extension of the program through the inclusion of additional tests-examinations and its application to more remote areas of Greece.


Telemedicine Teleconsulting Health Questionnaire Greece 



Vodafone Group Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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


  1. 1.
    Strehle EM, Shabde N. One Hundred Years of Telemedicine: does this New Technology have a Place in Paediatrics? Arch Dis Child. 2006;91(12):956–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sood S, Mbarika V, Jugoo S, et al. What Is Telemedicine? A Collection of 104 Peer-Reviewed Perspectives and Theoretical Underpinnings. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2007;13(5):573–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker C, Frishman WH, Scurlock C. Telemedicine and tele-ICU – The Evolution and Differentiation of a New Medical Field. Am J Med. 2016;129(12):e333–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tsirintani M. Strategic Procedures and Revisions for Implementing Telemedicine and Telecare in Greece. Applied Clinical Informatics. 2012;3:14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nolte E, Knai C and Saltman RB. Assessing Chronic Disease Management in European Health Systems, Concepts and Approaches. Technical Report. World Health Organization, DK, 2014.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steinhubl SR, Muse ED, Topol EJ. Can Mobile Health Technologies Transform Health Care? JAMA. 2013;310(22):2395–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamine S, Gerth-Guyette E, Faulx D, et al. Impact of mHealth Chronic Disease Management on Treatment Adherence and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norris AC. Essentials of Telemedicine and Telecare: John Wiley and Sons; 2002. p. 170.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heinzelmann PJ, Lugn NE, Kvedar JC. Telemedicine in the future. J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11(8):384–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klaassen B, Van Beijnum BJF, Hermens HJ. Usability in Telemedicine Systems-A Literature Survey. Int J Med Inform. 2016;93:57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang X, Zhang Z, Zhao J, Shi Y. Impact of Telemedicine on Healthcare Service System Considering Patients’ Choice. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, vol. 2019, Article ID 7642176, 16 pages.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benschoter RA, Eaton MT, Smith P. Use of Videotape to Provide Individual Instruction in Techniques of Psychotherapy. Acad Med. 1965;40(12):1159–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dwyer TF. Telepsychiatry: Psychiatric Consultation by Interactive Television. Am J Psychiatr. 1973;130:865–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization. Telemedicine: Opportunities and Developments in Member States: Report on the Second Global Survey on eHealth, Report, CH, 2010.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shi VY, Komiak S, Komiak P. Strategies to Reduce Uncertainty on the Diagnosis Quality in the Context of Virtual Consultation: Reviews of Virtual Consultation Systems. In: Duffy V, editor. Digital Human Modeling. Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics, and Risk Management. DHM 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 10917.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schettini P, Shah KP, O’Leary CP, et al. Keeping care connected: e-Consultation program improves access to nephrology care. J Telemed Telecare. 2019;25(3):142–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bashshur R, Shannon G, Sapci H. Telemedicine Evaluation. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2005;11(3):296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goodman CSHTA. 101: Introduction to Health Technology Assessment. Bethesda: MD National Library of Medicine; 2014.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    AlDossary S, Martin-Khan MG, Bradford NK, Smith AC. A systematic review of the methodologies used to evaluate telemedicine service initiatives in hospital facilities. Int J Med Inform. 2017;97:171–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scott Kruse C, Karem P, Shifflett K, Vegi L, Ravi K, Brooks M. Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: A systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24(1):4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, et al. Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions: The Satisfaction with Decision Scale. Med Decis Mak. 1996;16(1):58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fan VS, Burman M, McDonell MB, et al. Continuity of Care and other Determinants of Patient Satisfaction with Primary Care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(3):226–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kalman TP. An Overview of Patient Satisfaction with Psychiatric Treatment. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1983;34(1):48–54.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gilmour E, Campbell SM, Loane MA, et al. Comparison of Teleconsultations and Face-to-face Consultations: Preliminary Results of a United Kingdom Multicentre Teledermatology Study. Br J Dermatol. 1998;139(1):81–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Branger PJ, Van Der Wouden JC, Schudel BR, et al. Electronic Communication between Providers of Primary and Secondary Care. Br Med J. 1992;305(6861):1068–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Suresh S, Kodikal R, Kar S. Measuring Job Satisfaction and Impact of Demographic Characteristics among Doctors of Teaching Hospitals. International Multispecialty Journal of Health. 2015;1(9):29–38.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rashid A, Forman W, Jagger C, et al. Consultations in General Practice: A Comparison of Patients' and Doctors' Satisfaction. Br Med J. 1989;299(6706):1015–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nasser HA. Assessment of telemedicine by physicians at Prince Sultan Military Medical City. Journal of Nutrition and Human Health. 2017;1:1: 1–10.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vedsted P, Mainz J, Lauritzen T, et al. Patient and GP Agreement on Aspects of General Practice Care. Fam Pract. 2002;19(4):339–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jung HP, Wensing M, Olesen F, et al. Comparison of Patients' and General Practitioners' Evaluations of General Practice Care. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2002;11(4):315–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zandbelt LC, Smets EMA, Oort FJ, et al. Satisfaction with the Outpatient Encounter: A Comparison of Patients' and Physicians' Views. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(11):1088–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roberge D, Tremblay D, Turgeon M-È, et al. Patients' and Professionals' Evaluations of Quality of Care in Oncology Outpatient Clinics. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(11):2983–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Poost-Foroosh L, Jennings MB, Cheesman MF. Comparisons of Client and Clinician Views of the Importance of Factors in Client-clinician Interaction in Hearing Aid Purchase Decisions. J Am Acad Audiol. 2015;26(3):247–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kidholm K, Ekeland AG, Jensen LK, et al. A model for assessment of telemedicine applications: MAST. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(1):44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IUPESM and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Informatics – ISEB LaboratoryUniversity of MacedoniaThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Informatics and Telecommunications EngineeringUniversity of Western MacedoniaKozaniGreece

Personalised recommendations