[Skip to Navigation]
Editor's Correspondence
September 13, 2010

Specific Elements of Teleintensivist Paradigm Require Additional Scrutiny and Justification—Reply

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Divisions of Critical Care Medicine (Dr McCambridge) and General Internal Medicine (Drs Sussman and Etchason), Department of Community Health, Health Studies, and Education (Drs Jones and Etchason and Mss Paxton and Baker), Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania; Department of Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey (Dr McCambridge); and Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa (Dr Sussman).

Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(16):1509-1510. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.298

In reply

Davis and Jackson applaud us while questioning the value of our study1 because we examined the effectiveness of a multifaceted, comprehensive approach to tele-ICU care. They claim “such study design may invite persistent argument on the value of individual elements of care.” In our article we acknowledged that, because we studied a multifaceted intervention, we could not comment on the effectiveness of its individual components. However, we believe that studies examining the individual components of a tele-ICU approach would face other limitations. For example, if a particular component of an HITB were shown to have no effect on outcomes, when studied in isolation, it would still leave unanswered the question of whether that technology would be a necessary part of an effective, comprehensive HITB.

Add or change institution