Telemedicine Risks Have Evolved

In the early days of telemedicine, lawyers routinely counseled physicians on the “big risks,” which included:

• Making sure their Wi-Fi connection was stable
• Ensuring their appearance was professional to be on camera with patients
• Addressing patient privacy — who might overhear the visit?
• Considering patient safety — who else might be in the room but not visible on screen?

Those simpler days, when “telehealth” meant a video encounter between patient and provider, are long gone. And while those early risks still matter, the landscape has evolved dramatically.  Sure, it is still efficient for patients to avoid the drive to the doctor’s office and the wait in the waiting room, but with the race toward AI solutions, savvy providers will avoid assumptions about product functionality. 

New Tools, New Complexity

In the race to increase access, improve efficiency, and encourage collaboration, digital clinical tools and AI have exploded—particularly in primary care—since the pandemic.

Today’s digital primary care includes:

• Text-based exchanges (possibly without audio or video)
• Asynchronous visits
• AI-driven encounters

These innovations bring new and complex risks for safety, quality, and regulatory compliance.

Efficiency Meets Caution

Health systems are rapidly onboarding third-party digital front doors and developing and deploying their own solutions.

The goal: increase efficiency and reduce burnout. These are lofty aims that health tech can help achieve. But with cost and time savings from automation and AI integration comes a critical need to monitor clinical quality and outcomes, as well as patient (and provider) experience. 

Ask the Right Questions Upfront

When implementing a digital primary care solution, the most important question for a physician using the product to ask is: What is the product’s actual functionality at a granular level?

Examples to consider:

• Does the product double-check dosages, especially for pediatric patients?
• Does it run med-allergy checks?  If so, where is the product sourcing allergy information—from the patient, or from another EHR? 
• Does it truly integrate with the medical records, meaning push and pull data during and after an encounter?  Rather, does the product generate a PDF encounter summary that can be manually saved in Epic?

Assuming, without verifying, that a “high-tech” product does these things, or does them well, can put providers and patients at risk.

Reimagining Workflows and Provider Wellness

Even as product and data integration improve, apps become more user friendly, and systems better understand product functionality, remember:

• Virtual care has its own burnout risks
• Staffing a virtual clinic requires a different kind of stamina than in-person care

Recommendations:

• Encourage screen breaks to maintain mental freshness
• Support providers in multi-chat environments to preserve efficiency, and patient experience
• Be aware of discovery implications for data sharing across chat-based apps like Slack and Teams

Policies That Protect People

Health systems should develop policies and protocols that:

• Address abusive patients who may act out behind a digital veil
• Support clinicians facing emergencies—for example, a patient presenting with active suicidal ideation via chat—with resources and protocols for quick and thorough responses

The Bottom Line

Understanding product functionality is the first step in anticipating and mitigating risk. Those basic, upfront questions? They can make or break the success of a digital primary care rollout.