Download PDF
Semin Neurol 2022; 42(01): 067-076
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741496
Review Article

Neuroethics in the Era of Teleneurology

Michael J. Young
1   Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was supported by the NIH National Institute of Medical Health (F32MH123001, NIH BRAIN Initiative), MGH McCance Center for Brain Health (SPARC Award), and American Academy of Neurology (Palatucci Advocacy Grant).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The accelerating integration of telehealth technologies in neurology practice has transformed traditional interactions between neurologists and patients, allied clinicians and society. Despite the immense promise of these technologies to improve systems of neurological care, the infusion of telehealth technologies into neurology practice introduces a host of unique ethical challenges. Proactive consideration of the ethical dimensions of teleneurology and of the impact of these innovations on the field of neurology more generally can help to ensure responsible development and deployment across stages of implementation. Toward these ends, this article explores key ethical dimensions of teleneurology practice and policy, presents a normative framework for their consideration, and calls attention to underexplored questions ripe for further study at this evolving nexus of teleneurology and neuroethics. To promote successful and ethically resilient development of teleneurology across diverse contexts, clinicians, organizational leaders, and information technology specialists should work closely with neuroethicists with the common goal of identifying and rigorously assessing the trajectories and potential limits of teleneurology systems.

Keywords

teleneurology - neuroethics - telehealth - telemedicine - bioethics - disorders of consciousness


Publication History

Article published online:
11 January 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Andreassen HK, Trondsen M, Kummervold PE, Gammon D, Hjortdahl P. Patients who use e-mediated communication with their doctor: new constructions of trust in the patient-doctor relationship. Qual Health Res 2006; 16 (02) 238-248
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bean S. Tele-trust: What is telemedicine's impact on the physician-patient relationship?. J Clin Res Bioeth 2015; 6 (04) 1
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Illes J. Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice, and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Roskies A. Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron 2002; 35 (01) 21-23
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Greely HT, Ramos KM, Grady C. Neuroethics in the age of brain projects. Neuron 2016; 92 (03) 637-641
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Greely HT, Grady C, Ramos KM. et al. Neuroethics guiding principles for the NIH BRAIN initiative. J Neurosci 2018; 38 (50) 10586-10588
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Ramos KM, Grady C, Greely HT. et al. The NIH BRAIN Initiative: integrating neuroethics and neuroscience. Neuron 2019; 101 (03) 394-398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Salles A, Bjaalie JG, Evers K. et al. The Human Brain Project: responsible brain research for the benefit of society. Neuron 2019; 101 (03) 380-384
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Traner CB, Tolchin DW, Tolchin B. Medical ethics education for neurology residents: where do we go from here?. Semin Neurol 2018; 38 (05) 497-504
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Fins JJ. Rights Come to Mind: Brain Injury, Ethics, and the Struggle for Consciousness. Oxford: Cambridge University Press; 2015
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Fins JJ. Toward a pragmatic neuroethics in theory and practice. In: Racine E, Aspler J. eds. Debates About Neuroethics: Perspectives on Its Development, Focus, and Future. 2017: 45
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Cranford RE. The neurologist as ethics consultant and as a member of the institutional ethics committee. The neuroethicist. Neurol Clin 1989; 7 (04) 697-713
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 De Vries R. Framing neuroethics: a sociological assessment of the neuroethical imagination. Am J Bioeth 2005; 5 (02) 25-27 , discussion W3-4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Häyry M. Neuroethical theories. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2010; 19 (02) 165-178
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Bernat JL. Observations on ethical issues in the neuro-ICU. Neurocrit Care 2015; 23 (01) 1-3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Lewis A, Bernat JL. Ethics in neurology. Semin Neurol 2018; 38 (05) 495-496
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Africk BN, Richardson CJ, Zeidman LA. Pioneers in neurology: Abraham Myerson (1881-1948). J Neurol 2021; 268 (07) 2619-2620
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Bernat JL. Ethical Issues in Neurology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Glannon W. Bioethics and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Racine E. Pragmatic Neuroethics: Improving Treatment and Understanding of the Mind-brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2010
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Annas GJ. The legacy of the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial to American bioethics and human rights. In: Rubenfeld S. ed. Medicine after the Holocaust. Berlin: Springer; 2010: 93-105
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Baker R. Bioethics and human rights: a historical perspective. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2001; 10 (03) 241-252
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Jonsen AR. The Birth of Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Childress JF, Beauchamp TL. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Beauchamp TL. The Belmont Report. In: Emanuel EJ, Christine G, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D. eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008: 149-155
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Pellegrino ED. The metamorphosis of medical ethics. A 30-year retrospective. JAMA 1993; 269 (09) 1158-1162
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Sokol LL, Young MJ, Paparian J. et al. Advance care planning in Parkinson's disease: ethical challenges and future directions. npj . Parkinsons Dis 2019; 5 (01) 1-7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. The Virtues in Medical Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Fins JJ, Bacchetta MD, Miller FG. Clinical pragmatism: a method of moral problem solving. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1997; 7 (02) 129-145
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Turner L. Bioethics in pluralistic societies. Med Health Care Philos 2004; 7 (02) 201-208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Fins JJ. Encountering diversity: medical ethics and pluralism. J Relig Health 1994; 33 (01) 23-27
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Durante C. Bioethics in a pluralistic society: bioethical methodology in lieu of moral diversity. Med Health Care Philos 2009; 12 (01) 35-47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Marcus S, Charles A. Dana Foundation. Neuroethics: Mapping the Field: Conference Proceedings, May 13–14, 2002, San Francisco, California. New York, NY: Dana Press; 2002
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Levy N. Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Rommelfanger KS, Jeong SJ, Ema A. et al; Global Neuroethics Summit Delegates. Neuroethics questions to guide ethical research in the international brain initiatives. Neuron 2018; 100 (01) 19-36
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Liao SM. Moral Brains: The Neuroscience of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Young MJ, Pham J. Improving the electronic nexus between generalists and specialists: a public health imperative?. Healthc (Amst) 2016; 4 (04) 302-306
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Osman MA, Schick-Makaroff K, Thompson S. et al. Barriers and facilitators for implementation of electronic consultations (eConsult) to enhance access to specialist care: a scoping review. BMJ Glob Health 2019; 4 (05) e001629
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Hatcher-Martin JM, Busis NA, Cohen BH. et al. American Academy of Neurology telehealth position statement. Neurology 2021; 97 (07) 334-339
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Rubeis G, Schochow M, Steger F. Patient autonomy and quality of care in telehealthcare. Sci Eng Ethics 2018; 24 (01) 93-107
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Schmietow B. 11 Reconfigurations of autonomy in digital health and the ethics of (socially) assistive technologies. In: Haltaufderheide J, Hovemann J, Vollmann J. eds. Aging between Participation and Simulation. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2020: 171-184
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Adebayo PB, Oluwole OJ, Taiwo FT. COVID-19 and teleneurology in Sub-Saharan Africa: leveraging the current exigency. Front Public Health 2021; 8: 574505
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Genovese TJ, Carayannopoulos A, Parziale JR. Physical medicine and rehabilitation in Rhode Island during the COVID-19 pandemic. R I Med J (2013) 2020; 103 (10) 47-50
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Verduzco-Gutierrez M, Romanoski NL, Capizzi AN. et al. Spasticity outpatient evaluation via telemedicine: a practical framework. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2020; 99 (12) 1086-1091
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Agnello I, Giubellini C. Clinical experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Anal Psychol 2021; 66 (03) 379-398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Aquino ERDS, Domingues RB, Mantese CE, Fantini FGMM, Nitrini R, Prado GFD. Telemedicine use among neurologists before and during COVID-19 pandemic. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2021; 79 (07) 658-664
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Boes CJ, Leep Hunderfund AN, Martinez-Thompson JM. et al. Primer on the in-home teleneurologic examination: a COVID-19 pandemic imperative. Neurol Clin Pract 2021; 11 (02) e157-e164
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Clark GD, Lotze TE. Neurology in a pandemic. Neurol Clin 2021; 39 (03) 699-704
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 DiGiovanni M, Weller I, Martin A. Pivoting in the pandemic: a qualitative study of child and adolescent psychiatrists in the times of COVID-19. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 2021; 15 (01) 32
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Haldeman S, Nordin M, Tavares P. et al. Distance management of spinal disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: evidence-based patient and clinician guides from the global spine care initiative. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2021; 7 (02) e25484
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Houston E, Kennedy AG, O'Malley D, Rabinowitz T, Rose GL, Boyd J. Telemedicine in neurology: a scoping review of key outcomes in movement disorders. Telemed J E Health 2021; (e-pub ahead of print)
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Iodice F, Romoli M, Giometto B. et al; Digital Technologies, Web and Social Media Study Group of the Italian Society of Neurology. Stroke and digital technology: a wake-up call from COVID-19 pandemic. Neurol Sci 2021; 42 (03) 805-809
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Kummer BR, Sweetnam C, Vickrey BG. et al. Teleneurology expansion in response to the COVID-19 outbreak at a tertiary health system in New York City. Neurol Clin Pract 2021; 11 (02) e102-e111
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 McGinley MP, Gales S, Rowles W. et al. Expanded access to multiple sclerosis teleneurology care following the COVID-19 pandemic. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin 2021; 7 (01) 205 5217321997467
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Reider-Demer M, Jalilian L, Roy S. et al. Implementation and evaluation of a neurology telemedicine initiative at a major academic medical center. Telemed J E Health 2021; (e-pub ahead of print)
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Sandrone S, Albert DV, Dunham SR. et al. Training in neurology: how lessons learned on teaching, well-being and telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic can shape the future of neurology education. Neurology 2021; 96 (24) e3007-e3010
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Snoswell CL, Chelberg G, De Guzman KR. et al. The clinical effectiveness of telehealth: a systematic review of meta-analyses from 2010 to 2019. J Telemed Telecare 2021; X211022907
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Tse J, LaStella D, Chow E. et al. Telehealth acceptability and feasibility among people served in a community behavioral health system during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatr Serv 2021; 72 (06) 654-660
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Young MJ, Edlow BL. Emerging consciousness at a clinical crossroads. AJOB Neurosci 2021; 12 (2–3): 148-150
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Yu AT, Regenhardt RW, Whitney C. et al. CTA protocols in a telestroke network improve efficiency for both spoke and hub hospitals. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021; 42 (03) 435-440
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Young MJ, Bodien YG, Giacino JT. et al. The neuroethics of disorders of consciousness: a brief history of evolving ideas. Brain 2021; 144 (11) 3291-3310
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 Clark CR, Akdas Y, Wilkins CH. et al. TechQuity is an imperative for health and technology business: let's work together to achieve it. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (09) 2013-2016
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Sieck CJ, Rastetter M, Hefner JL. et al. The five A's of access for TechQuity. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2021; 32 (02) 290-299
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Penchansky R, Thomas JW. The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Med Care 1981; 19 (02) 127-140
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 65 Budhu JA, Velazquez AI, Said RR, Jordan JT. Opinion & special articles: maximizing inclusiveness and diversity through virtual residency applications and interviews. Neurology 2021; 97 (13) 647-650
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 66 Zha AM, Chung LS, Song SS, Majersik JJ, Jagolino-Cole AL. Training in neurology: adoption of resident teleneurology training in the wake of COVID-19: Telemedicine crash course. Neurology 2020; 95 (09) 404-407
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Gros P, Rotstein D, Kinach M. et al. Innovation in resident education - description of the Neurology International Residents Videoconference and Exchange (NIRVE) program. J Neurol Sci 2021; 420: 117222-117222
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 Sandrone S, Albert DV, Dunham SR. et al. Training in neurology: how lessons learned on teaching, well-being and telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic can shape the future of neurology education. Neurology 2021; 96 (24) e3007-e3010
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 Nouri S, Khoong EC, Lyles CR, Karliner L. Addressing equity in telemedicine for chronic disease management during the Covid-19 pandemic. NEJM Catalyst. 2020
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 70 Adepoju O, Liaw W, Chae M. et al. COVID-19 and telehealth operations in Texas primary care clinics: disparities in medically underserved area clinics. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2021; 32 (02) 948-957
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 71 Alvarez P, Sianis A, Brown J, Ali A, Briasoulis A. Chronic disease management in heart failure: focus on telemedicine and remote monitoring. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2021; 22 (02) 403-413
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 72 Archer N, Lokker C, Ghasemaghaei M, DiLiberto D. eHealth implementation issues in low-resource countries: model, survey, and analysis of user experience. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (06) e23715
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 73 Bellaiche MMJ, Fan W, Walbert HJ. et al. Disparity in access to oncology precision care: a geospatial analysis of driving distances to genetic counselors in the U.S. Front Oncol 2021; 11: 689927
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 74 Chen EM, Andoh JE, Nwanyanwu K. Socioeconomic and demographic disparities in the use of telemedicine for ophthalmic care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ophthalmology 2021; 129 (01) 15-25
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 75 Gmunder KN, Ruiz JW, Franceschi D, Suarez MM. Demographics associated with US healthcare disparities are exacerbated by the telemedicine surge during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Telemed Telecare 2021; (e-pub ahead of print)
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 76 Hsiao V, Chandereng T, Lankton RL. et al. Disparities in telemedicine access: a cross-sectional study of a newly established infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (03) 445-458
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 77 Kiarashi J, VanderPluym J, Szperka CL. et al. Factors associated with, and mitigation strategies for, health care disparities faced by patients with headache disorders. Neurology 2021; 97 (06) 280-289
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 78 Kirkland E, Schumann SO, Schreiner A. et al. Patient demographics and clinic type are associated with patient engagement within a remote monitoring program. Telemed J E Health 2021; 27 (08) 843-850
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 79 Mahtta D, Daher M, Lee MT, Sayani S, Shishehbor M, Virani SS. Promise and perils of telehealth in the current era. Curr Cardiol Rep 2021; 23 (09) 115
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 80 Miyawaki A, Tabuchi T, Ong MK, Tsugawa Y. Age and social disparities in the use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (07) e27982
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 81 Ng BP, Park C. Accessibility of telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of Medicare beneficiaries. Prev Chronic Dis 2021; 18: E65
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 82 Nguyen OT, Watson AK, Motwani K. et al. Patient-level factors associated with utilization of telemedicine services from a free clinic during COVID-19. Telemed J E Health 2021;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 83 Ojo A, Beckman AL, Weiseth A, Shah N. Ensuring racial equity in pregnancy care during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Matern Child Health J 2021; (e-pub ahead of print)
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 84 Oshima SM, Tait SD, Thomas SM. et al. Association of smartphone ownership and internet use with markers of health literacy and access: cross-sectional survey study of perspectives from project PLACE (Population Level Approaches to Cancer Elimination). J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (06) e24947
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 85 Rustad AM, Lio PA. Pandemic pressure: teledermatology and health care disparities. J Patient Exp 2021; 8: 2374373521996982
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 86 Ryskina KL, Shultz K, Zhou Y, Lautenbach G, Brown RT. Older adults' access to primary care: gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in telemedicine. J Am Geriatr Soc 2021; 69 (10) 2732-2740
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 87 Sockalingam S, Kirvan A, Pereira C. et al. The role of tele-education in advancing mental health quality of care: a content analysis of project ECHO recommendations. Telemed J E Health 2021; 27 (08) 939-946
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 88 VanderWerf M, Bernard J, Barta DT. et al. Pandemic action plan policy and regulatory summary telehealth policy and regulatory considerations during a pandemic. Telemed J E Health 2021; ; (e-pub ahead of print)
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 89 Warinner CB, Hayirli TC, Bergmark RW, Sethi R, Rettig EM. Patterns of technology use among patients with head and neck cancer and implications for telehealth. OTO Open 2021; 5 (02) 2473974  × 211018612
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 90 Badawy SM, Radovic A. Digital approaches to remote pediatric health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: existing evidence and a call for further research. JMIR Pediatr Parent 2020; 3 (01) e20049
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 91 Dorsey ER, Glidden AM, Holloway MR, Birbeck GL, Schwamm LH. Teleneurology and mobile technologies: the future of neurological care. Nat Rev Neurol 2018; 14 (05) 285-297
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 92 Davis LE, Coleman J, Harnar J, King MK. Teleneurology: successful delivery of chronic neurologic care to 354 patients living remotely in a rural state. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20 (05) 473-477
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 93 Wiborg A, Widder B. Telemedicine in Stroke in Swabia Project. Teleneurology to improve stroke care in rural areas: The Telemedicine in Stroke in Swabia (TESS) Project. Stroke 2003; 34 (12) 2951-2956
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 94 Davis LE, Harnar J, LaChey-Barbee LA, Pirio Richardson S, Fraser A, King MK. Using teleneurology to deliver chronic neurologic care to rural veterans: analysis of the first 1,100 patient visits. Telemed J E Health 2019; 25 (04) 274-278
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 95 Knepley KD, Mao JZ, Wieczorek P, Okoye FO, Jain AP, Harel NY. Impact of telerehabilitation for stroke-related deficits. Telemed J E Health 2021; 27 (03) 239-246
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 96 McCormick R, Estrada J, Whitney C. et al. Teleneurology comprehensive inpatient consultations expedite access to care and decreases hospital length of stay. Neurohospitalist 2021; 11 (03) 229-234
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 97 Matiello M, Mahler K, Estrada J, Whitney C, Viswanathan A, Schwamm L. The academic teleneurology evolution: a comparison of telestroke and general neurology inpatient consultations. J Neurol Sci 2019; 405: 147-148
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 98 Campanella N, Morosini P, Sampaolo G. et al. Medical teleconsultation to general practitioners reduces the medical error vulnerability of internal medicine patients. Eur J Intern Med 2015; 26 (09) 675-679
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 99 Mehta SJ. Telemedicine's potential ethical pitfalls. Virtual Mentor 2014; 16 (12) 1014-1017
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 100 Decety J. Empathy in medicine: what it is, and how much we really need it. Am J Med 2020; 133 (05) 561-566
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 101 Attar HS, Chandramani S. Impact of physician empathy on migraine disability and migraineur compliance. Ann Indian Acad Neurol 2012; 15 (Suppl. 01) S89-S94
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 102 Kelm Z, Womer J, Walter JK, Feudtner C. Interventions to cultivate physician empathy: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ 2014; 14 (01) 219
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 103 Miller EA. Telemedicine and doctor-patient communication: an analytical survey of the literature. J Telemed Telecare 2001; 7 (01) 1-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 104 Glueck D, Myers K, Turvey C. Establishing therapeutic rapport in telemental health. In: Myers K, Turvey CL. eds. Telemental Health : Clinical, Technical, and Administrative Foundations for Evidence-Based Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013: 29-46
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 105 Cheshire WP, Barrett KM, Eidelman BH. et al. Patient perception of physician empathy in stroke telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 2021; 27 (09) 572-581
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 106 Modic MB, Neuendorf K, Windover AK. Enhancing your webside manner: optimizing opportunities for relationship-centered care in virtual visits. J Patient Exp 2020; 7 (06) 869-877
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 107 Torous J, Hsin H. Empowering the digital therapeutic relationship: virtual clinics for digital health interventions. NPJ Digit Med 2018; 1 (01) 16
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 108 Theobald M, Brazelton T. STFM forms task force to develop a national telemedicine curriculum, from STFM. Ann Fam Med 2020; 18 (03) 285-286
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 109 Jagolino AL, Jia J, Gildersleeve K. et al. A call for formal telemedicine training during stroke fellowship. Neurology 2016; 86 (19) 1827-1833
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 110 Govindarajan R, Anderson ER, Hesselbrock RR. et al. Developing an outline for teleneurology curriculum: AAN Telemedicine Work Group recommendations. Neurology 2017; 89 (09) 951-959
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 111 Bottino CJ, Manji K. Can clinical empathy be communicated by text message? A case report. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26 (02) 259-263
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 112 Hilty DM, Torous J, Parish MB. et al. A scoping review to develop a framework of asynchronous technology competencies for psychiatry and medicine. J Technol Behavioral Sci. 2021
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 113 Hilty DM, Torous J, Parish MB. et al. A literature review comparing clinicians' approaches and skills to in-person, synchronous, and asynchronous care: moving toward competencies to ensure quality care. Telemed J E Health 2021; 27 (04) 356-373
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 114 Hilty DM, Parish MB, Chan S, Torous J, Xiong G, Yellowlees PM. A comparison of in-person, synchronous and asynchronous telepsychiatry: skills/competencies, teamwork, and administrative workflow. J Technol Behav Sci 2020; 5 (03) 273-288
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 115 Pronovost PJ. Learning accountability for patient outcomes. JAMA 2010; 304 (02) 204-205
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 116 Alhajri N, Simsekler MCE, Alfalasi B. et al. Physicians' attitudes toward telemedicine consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional study. JMIR Med Inform 2021; 9 (06) e29251
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 117 Yedlinsky NT, Peebles RL. Telemedicine management of musculoskeletal issues. Am Fam Physician 2021; 103 (03) 147-154
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 118 Laskowski ER, Johnson SE, Shelerud RA. et al. The telemedicine musculoskeletal examination. 2020; 95 (08) 1715-1731
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 119 Young MJ, Edlow BL. The quest for covert consciousness: bringing neuroethics to the bedside. Neurology 2021; 96 (19) 893-896
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 120 Matiello M, Turner AC, Estrada J. et al. Teleneurology-enabled determination of death by neurologic criteria after cardiac arrest or severe neurologic injury. Neurology 2021; 96 (15) e1999-e2005
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 121 Lachance BB, Morris NA, Brust JC. Teleneurology for determination of death by neurologic criteria: adapting to the times. Neurology 2021; 96 (15) 691-e20692
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 122 Girkar UM, Palacios R, Gupta A. et al. Teleneurology consultations for prognostication and brain death diagnosis. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26 (04) 482-486
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 123 Shewmon DA. Statement in support of revising the uniform determination of death act and in opposition to a proposed revision. J Med Philos 2021 (e-pub ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhab014
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 124 Lewis A, Bonnie RJ, Pope T. Is there a right to delay determination of death by neurologic criteria?. JAMA Neurol 2020; 77 (11) 1347-1348
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 125 Lewis A, Bonnie RJ, Pope T. et al. Determination of death by neurologic criteria in the United States: the case for revising the uniform determination of death act. J Law Med Ethics 2019; 47 (4_suppl, S04): 9-24
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 126 Truog RD, Krishnamurthy K, Tasker RC. Brain death—moving beyond consistency in the diagnostic criteria. JAMA 2020; 324 (11) 1045-1047
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 127 Nittari G, Khuman R, Baldoni S. et al. Telemedicine practice: review of the current ethical and legal challenges. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26 (12) 1427-1437
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 128 Kim DW, Choi JY, Han KH. Risk management-based security evaluation model for telemedicine systems. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020; 20 (01) 106
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 129 Kellmeyer P. Big brain data: on the responsible use of brain data from clinical and consumer-directed neurotechnological devices. Neuroethics 2021; 14 (01) 83-98
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 130 Goering S, Klein E, Specker Sullivan L. et al. Recommendations for responsible development and application of neurotechnologies. Neuroethics 2021; 14: 365-386
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 131 AlOsail D, Amino N, Mohammad N. Security issues and solutions in e-health and telemedicine. In: Pandian AP, Fernando X, Islam SMS. Computer Networks, Big Data and IoT. Berlin: Springer; 2021: 305-318
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 132 Watzlaf VJM, Zhou L, Dealmeida DR, Hartman LM. A systematic review of research studies examining telehealth privacy and security practices used by healthcare providers. Int J Telerehabil 2017; 9 (02) 39-59
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 133 AMA. Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.2.12: Ethical practice in telemedicine. American Medical Association Council on Ethics and Judicial Affairs. 2021 . Accessed December 19, 2021: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/ethical-practice-telemedicine
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 134 Klein KE, Rasmussen PA, Winners SL, Frontera JA. Teleneurocritical care and telestroke. Crit Care Clin 2015; 31 (02) 197-224
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 135 Bishop M, Kayes N, McPherson K. Understanding the therapeutic alliance in stroke rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2021; 43 (08) 1074-1083
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 136 Houllé W, Plazonnet B, Tarquinio C, Costantini M. Neurologists' real-life experience when breaking bad news, dealing with patients' reactions and complexity of the therapeutic alliance with multiple sclerosis patients. Eur J Health Psychol 2014; 16: 762
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 137 Creutzfeldt CJ, Robinson MT, Holloway RG. Neurologists as primary palliative care providers: Communication and practice approaches. Neurol Clin Pract 2016; 6 (01) 40-48
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 138 Duarte-Garcia Luis J. Physician-patient relationship in neurological diseases [in Spanish]. Rev Neurol 1999; 29 (07) 642-647
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 139 Anestis E, Eccles F, Fletcher I, French M, Simpson J. Giving and receiving a diagnosis of a progressive neurological condition: a scoping review of doctors' and patients' perspectives. Patient Educ Couns 2020; 103 (09) 1709-1723
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 140 Illes JN. Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice, and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 141 Nussbaum M. Why practice needs ethical theory: particularism, principle, and bad behavior. In: Hooker B, Olivia Little MO. eds. Moral Particularism. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000: 50-86
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 142 Steinbock B. The Oxford Handbook of Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007
    Search in Google Scholar