Readiness and Acceptance of Philippine General Hospital Medical Staff for Telemedicine as Alternative Method of Patient Consultation during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Post-enhanced Community Quarantine Period

Abstract

Introduction. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted a shift from standard in-person consultation to non-patient contact methods such as telemedicine. To our knowledge, there was no published a priori evaluation of the telemedicine readiness and acceptance among the medical staff of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) before implementing the institution’s telemedicine program. The lack of this vital pre-implementation step is understandable given the unprecedented crisis. However, if telemedicine programs will continue in the post-quarantine period, it is crucial to determine the facilitators and barriers to the use of telemedicine.
 Objective. This study determined the level of readiness and acceptance for telemedicine as an alternative method for patient consultation during the COVID-19 pandemic and post-enhanced community quarantine period among PGH medical staff (consultants, residents, fellows).
 Methods. The cross-sectional study was conducted from October 2020 to July 2021. Medical staff from the 16 clinical departments of the PGH were selected by systematic random sampling. Inclusion criteria included appointment as medical staff in PGH or University of the Philippines College of Medicine (UPCM), voluntary informed consent, internet access, and technical capacity to access e-mail and SurveyMonkey™. The online survey consisted of two questionnaires. It collected data on the demographic profile and outcomes of interest (e.g., telemedicine readiness and acceptance). Technological readiness was determined through the 16-item modified version of Technological Readiness Index (TRI) version 2.0, while telemedicine acceptance was determined through the modified version of the 19-item Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) questionnaire. Descriptive and analytical statistics were performed at a 95% confidence interval.
 Results. The study had an 87% response rate with 205 respondents, 62% of whom were physicians in training (resident physicians and fellows). The respondents had a median age of 33 years and were mostly males. Only 19% had telemedicine experience before the pandemic. The majority (51%) learned telemedicine on their own. The most common devices used for telemedicine were mobile or smartphones (53%) and laptops (38%). The primary source of internet for telemedicine was mobile broadband (e.g., cellular data) (40%). The majority practiced telemedicine at their home or residence (51%), followed closely by the hospital or clinic (47%). The mean score of the respondents on TRI was 3.56 (very good technological readiness), and 4.00 (very good telemedicine acceptance) on UTAUT (behavioral intention to use the system). Performance expectancy (p = 0.02), effort expectancy (p = 0.03), and self-efficacy (p = 0.02) were significantly directly related to telemedicine adoption, while anxiety (p = 0.03) was significantly inversely related.
 Conclusion. The PGH medical staff were found to have very good telemedicine readiness and acceptance. This suggests a willingness to use telemedicine during the pandemic. Further studies on the organization and technical support system of the telemedicine program in the PGH are strongly recommended. The quality and efficiency of the program will strongly influence the continued use of telemedicine by the medical staff even after the pandemic.