Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35783642›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

From COVID-19 Pandemic to Patient Safety: A New "Spring" for Telemedicine or a Boomerang Effect?

Francesco De Micco, Vittorio Fineschi, Giuseppe Banfi, Paola Frati, Antonio Oliva, Guido Vittorio Travaini, Mario Picozzi, Giuseppe Curcio, Leandro Pecchia, Tommasangelo Petitti and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. The evolution of patient-reported safety concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic within a series of study questionnaires: a multi-method analysis.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Francesco De MiccoBioethics and Humanities Research Unit, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Vittorio FineschiDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopaedic Sciences (SAIMLAL), Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe BanfiIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Paola FratiDepartment of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopaedic Sciences (SAIMLAL), Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Antonio OlivaDepartment of Health Surveillance and Bioethics, Section of Legal Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Guido Vittorio TravainiVita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Mario PicozziDepartment of Biotechnology and Science of Life, Center for Clinical Ethics, Insubria University, Varese, Italy.
Giuseppe CurcioDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Leandro PecchiaCampus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Tommasangelo PetittiHygiene, Public Health and Statistics, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Rossana AlloniBioethics and Humanities Research Unit, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Enrico RosatiCasa di Cura "Auxologico Roma-Buon Pastore", Rome, Italy.
Anna De BenedictisNursing Science Research Unit, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Vittoradolfo TamboneBioethics and Humanities Research Unit, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the Covid-19 health emergency, telemedicine was an essential asset through which health systems strengthened their response during the critical phase of the pandemic. According to the post-pandemic economic reform plans of many countries, telemedicine will not be limited to a tool for responding to an emergency condition but it will become a structural resource that will contribute to the reorganization of Healthcare Systems and enable the transfer of part of health care from the hospital to the home-based care. However, scientific evidences have shown that health care delivered through telemedicine can be burdened by numerous ethical and legal issues. Although there is an emerging discussion on patient safety issues related to the use of telemedicine, there is a lack of reseraches specifically designed to investigate patient safety. On the contrary, it would be necessary to determine standards and specific application rules in order to ensure safety. This paper examines the telemedicine-risk profiles and proposes a position statement for clinical risk management to support continuous improvement in the safety of health care delivered through telemedicine.

Indexed as

clinical governance (CG)Ethics of Job Well DoneHealthcare risk Managementpatient safetyquality of care (QoC)systemic clinical risk managementtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35783642
PMCPMC9240206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.