This framework defines roles and implementation challenges in telemedicine, highlighting interoperability and privacy issues.
AbstractThe rapid expansion of telemedicine, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has transformed healthcare delivery by enabling remote consultation, monitoring, and diagnostics. However, existing telemedicine systems often suffer from fragmented architectures, limited interoperability, and inadequate alignment with regulatory and operational requirements. This paper proposes a comprehensive architectural framework for telemedicine systems that integrates key technological components, stakeholder roles, and implementation considerations into a unified model. Through a systematic review and comparative analysis of established frameworks including outcome-oriented models, semantic healthcare standards, and emerging technology-driven architectures critical gaps were identified in current telemedicine design approaches. The proposed framework delineates modular layers encompassing user interfaces, communication protocols, service components (e.g., electronic health records and AI engines), data management, integration with third-party systems, and governance mechanisms to ensure privacy and compliance. Additionally, the framework explicitly defines the roles and responsibilities of patients, healthcare providers, system administrators, institutions, and regulatory bodies to facilitate coordinated operation and oversight. Implementation challenges such as data security, infrastructure limitations in rural areas, interoperability across diverse EHR systems, scalability, user training, and deployment costs are thoroughly discussed. This work offers a foundational reference model to guide researchers, developers, and policymakers in advancing telemedicine platforms that are scalable, secure, and interoperable. Future efforts will focus on validating the framework through simulation, prototype development, and pilot studies to enhance practical adoption and impact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hemalatha et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: