Telemedicine encounter quality: comparing patient and provider perspectives of a socio-technical system

The effectiveness of the telemedicine encounter is dependent on the use of state-of-the-art technology and the quality of the technology-based interactions. We take a socio-technical approach to understanding quality during telemedicine encounters. This approach has not been well studied in telemedicine service encounter research. To enrich understanding, we use a multimethod (direct observation, interview, focus group, survey) field study to collect and interpret a rich set of data. We conduct this study from two perspectives. First, we focus on the perceptions of the medical providers (e.g. physicians) who directly use the technology and are accountable for patient care. We then compare provider perspectives to those of patients, who act as indirect users of telemedicine technology and are the ultimate consumers of health care services provided via telemedicine. The result of this field study is a comparative framework of quality attributes for telemedicine service encounters that prioritizes the attributes from the provider and patient perspectives.

[1]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  Technology infusion in service encounters , 2000 .

[2]  Olivia R. Liu Sheng,et al.  Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  Critical Service Encounters: The Employee's Viewpoint , 1994 .

[4]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[5]  K. Winsted,et al.  The service experience in two cultures: A behavioral perspective , 1997 .

[6]  Peter B. Seddon A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success , 1997, Inf. Syst. Res..

[7]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Quality attributes in telemedicine video conferencing , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[8]  Mark Lycett,et al.  Evaluating business information systems fit: from concept to practical application , 1999 .

[9]  C. Grönroos The perceived service quality concept – a mistake? , 2001 .

[10]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information systems success revisited , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[11]  Johann S. Magenheim,et al.  Deconstruction of Socio-technical Information Systems with Virtual Exploration Environments as a Method of Teaching Informatics , 2001 .

[12]  J H Sanders,et al.  Telemedicine: Where It Is and Where It's Going , 1998, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[13]  Richard Heeks,et al.  Understanding success and failure of Healthcare information systems , 2000 .

[14]  Panagiotis Kanellis,et al.  An approach and model for assessing the business value of e-banking distribution channels: evaluation as communication , 2002, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[15]  Mary Jo Bitner,et al.  Self-Service Technologies: Understanding Customer Satisfaction with Technology-Based Service Encounters , 2000 .

[16]  D. E. Turner,et al.  Quality determinants and hospital satisfaction. Perceptions of the facility and staff might be key influencing factors. , 1998, Marketing health services.

[17]  Arun Rai,et al.  Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and Theoretical Analysis , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[18]  Gary Klein,et al.  User evaluation of information systems: by system typology , 1999, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[19]  Mark Lycett,et al.  An interpretive approach to the measurement of information sytems success: from concept to practical application , 1998 .

[20]  A. Adam Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .