Remote consultations went from niche to universal in a matter of weeks when circumstances forced it. The forced period ended, and what remained is worth describing precisely.
What remote care handles well
Follow-up appointments where nothing needs examining. Prescription renewals. Mental health consultations, where the evidence for equivalence with in-person care is reasonably strong. Triage, deciding whether someone needs to be seen and how urgently.
Anything where the clinical value is in the conversation rather than the examination.
What it does not
Physical examination, obviously. Anything requiring a test or procedure. Situations where the patient’s presentation – how they walk in, how they look – carries information they cannot articulate.
And patients without reliable connectivity, privacy at home, or the ability to use the technology, which describes a meaningful share of the people who need care most.
The efficiency question
Remote consultations are shorter and cheaper to deliver, which health systems like. They are also easier to request, which increases demand, which can consume the savings.
The hybrid pattern
What settled is remote by default for what it suits, in-person for what it does not, with the decision made at booking rather than by policy. That is more or less sensible and it took a forced experiment to arrive at.
What is still developing
Remote monitoring – devices at home feeding data to clinicians – which extends what can be managed without a visit. And the licensing question of whether a clinician in one jurisdiction can treat a patient in another, which is unresolved almost everywhere.