Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213629›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Telemedicine and the standard of care: a call for a new approach?

Tomáš Holčapek, Martin Šolc, Petr Šustek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Liability in Telesurgery: Navigating Legal, Ethical, and Cross-Border Challenges in the Era of Global Surgical Care.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Integrating enterprise risk management to address AI-related risks in healthcare: Strategies for effective risk mitigation and implementation.Journal of healthcare risk management : the journal of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Tomáš HolčapekDepartment of Medical Law, Faculty of Law, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Martin ŠolcDepartment of Medical Law, Faculty of Law, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Petr ŠustekDepartment of Medical Law, Faculty of Law, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Telemedicine, understood as the provision of health care by a health professional to a patient who is physically not in the same location as the health professional, has many actual and potential benefits. It also has some disadvantages though, including a higher risk of misdiagnosis or another unfavorable outcome of certain remotely-provided services. In principle, the regime of legal liability for medical malpractice is the same for telemedicine as for traditional physical care. The general outline of the standard of care, which includes respect for medical science, the patient's individuality and objective possibilities, is abstract and flexible enough to be used for remote care without the need for redefinition. The quality of health care should be evaluated on the basis of the whole scale of risks and benefits it brings to a particular patient, including accessibility and comfort. In general, it should be permissible to provide a medical service remotely on the condition that its overall quality is at least as good as its comparable physical alternative. In other words, certain decrease in quality of some aspects of remote care can be compensated by other advantages. In terms of public health, support for telemedicine may bring a great improvement in the access to health care, and thus help significantly the individual members of the population. From the individual perspective, respect for personal autonomy implies that a patient should have every right to opt for a remote service, provided that there exists a true choice between meaningful options which is made on the basis of full information. If telemedicine is to fulfill its potential without sacrificing the protection of patients and their rights, reasonable guidelines for remote services need to be defined for particular medical fields, and for specific procedures within them. Among other issues, these guidelines must address the question of when it is necessary to refer the patient to physical care.

Indexed as

MalpracticeTelemedicineDelivery of Health CareHumansLiability, LegalStandard of Carehealth lawlegal liability in health carepublic healthremote health servicesstandard of caretelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID37213629
PMCPMC10192621

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.