What Patients Teach Us About Telehealth In Australia

Telehealth became a central part of healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic, when lockdowns, quarantine requirements and pressure on hospitals changed how patients contacted clinicians. Video consultations, telephone appointments and digital follow-ups allowed many people to maintain care while reducing travel and infection risks.

A qualitative study of patient experiences with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic looks beyond appointment numbers and service efficiency. Through interviews, focus groups and patient narratives, this kind of research explores how people felt, adapted and made decisions while receiving care remotely.

The findings are relevant well beyond the emergency period. For Australian health services, including those across Brisbane, regional Queensland and remote communities, patient accounts can guide safer, fairer and more responsive models of virtual care. The translation network provides a useful local context for connecting evidence, clinicians, researchers and community priorities.

Convenience came with conditions

Many patients valued avoiding a long journey to a clinic, finding parking in Brisbane or arranging time away from work. Telehealth was especially useful for routine prescription reviews, specialist follow-ups and conversations that did not require a physical examination. Parents could attend appointments without taking several children into a waiting room, while carers could join from home.

Convenience was not universal. A video consultation could be difficult for a person with limited digital confidence, poor vision, hearing impairment or an unstable internet connection. Some patients also felt that a short telephone call made their concerns seem less important than an appointment in a clinic.

Qualitative accounts commonly show that convenience depends on the type of care, the patient’s household and the clinician’s approach. A remote appointment can save time while creating new work, such as downloading software, finding a private room or sending photographs and documents before the consultation.

Location and technology shaped access

Australia’s geography was a major influence on telehealth experiences. A patient in outer Brisbane might have reliable NBN access but limited privacy in a crowded home, while someone in western Queensland may face mobile coverage gaps, long distances and fewer local health services. Telehealth can reduce travel, but it cannot remove the digital divide.

Cost also affected participation. Although Medicare-supported telehealth expanded during the pandemic, eligibility, provider participation and bulk-billing arrangements have changed over time. Patients may need to check current Medicare Benefits Schedule requirements and whether a provider charges a gap fee. For people managing chronic disease, repeated private fees can make a virtual model less accessible than expected.

Language and cultural safety mattered as well. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients may prefer care that includes trusted local services, family or community support. Patients from culturally diverse communities may need interpreters who can participate effectively by phone or video, rather than relying on relatives to translate complex clinical information.

Trust depended on communication

Patients often judged the quality of telehealth through the clinician’s listening skills. Clear explanations, pauses for questions and a warm greeting helped people feel recognised rather than processed. Small actions, such as checking whether the patient could hear properly or confirming who else was in the room, strengthened confidence.

Privacy was another recurring concern. A patient might worry that a family member, housemate or employer could overhear a sensitive discussion. Clinicians also needed to explain how information would be recorded, stored and shared. These details were particularly important for mental health, sexual health, family violence and other services involving personal disclosures.

Remote care could also alter clinical judgement. Without a physical examination, observation of movement or access to immediate measurements, patients and clinicians had to decide when an in-person review was necessary. A safe consultation therefore included a clear escalation plan, such as contacting a GP, attending a local clinic or calling emergency services when symptoms required urgent assessment.

Patients carried hidden responsibilities

Telehealth shifted some tasks from the health service to the patient. People had to test devices, manage links, position the camera, describe symptoms precisely and sometimes measure blood pressure, temperature or blood glucose at home. This arrangement worked well for patients with suitable equipment and confidence, but it could increase anxiety for others.

Parents and informal carers often became part of the care team. They helped children stay engaged, supported older relatives and took notes during complex consultations. Yet their involvement required consent and careful attention to the patient’s independence. A patient should be able to speak privately when needed, even when a family member is helping with technology.

The experience also varied by appointment type. A telephone consultation could be more accessible than video for a person with limited data or an older handset, while video might support better rapport and visual assessment. Digital access should therefore include genuine choice rather than assuming that one platform suits everyone.

Lessons for research and service design

Qualitative evidence is valuable because it reveals the reasons behind patterns that routine service data may miss. A high attendance rate does not show whether patients felt heard, whether they understood their treatment plan or whether they avoided mentioning a serious symptom. Interviews can uncover these gaps and identify practical improvements.

Health services can combine patient stories with appointment data, safety incidents, waiting times and clinical outcomes. Researchers should include people who are often under-represented in digital health evaluations, including older adults, people with disability, rural residents, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and those without stable housing or internet access.

Education also supports better translation of evidence into practice. Resources such as the education program can help develop researchers and clinicians who understand both methodological rigour and the practical realities of patient-centred care.

Priorities for patient-centred telehealth

A strong post-pandemic model should treat telehealth as one part of a coordinated service, rather than a replacement for every face-to-face encounter. The following priorities reflect the concerns raised through patient narratives and the needs of Australia’s varied health system:

• Offer phone, video and in-person pathways according to clinical need, patient preference and accessibility.
• Explain fees, Medicare arrangements, privacy safeguards and follow-up steps before the appointment.
• Provide interpreter access, disability adjustments and technical assistance without making patients feel responsible for system failures.
• Build clear escalation pathways for physical examination, urgent review and local support.
• Involve patients, carers and communities in evaluating whether virtual care is safe, respectful and useful.

Patients’ experiences should remain central as Australian health services refine virtual care. Health leaders, researchers and clinicians can use qualitative findings to redesign pathways, measure outcomes that matter to communities and ensure technology supports — rather than obscures — human relationships.

Support patient-informed research and responsible service innovation through Brisbane Diamantina Health Partners, and help turn lived experience into safer, more equitable care across Queensland and Australia.