Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a digital health practitioner to navigate the complex interplay between established medical ethics, patient privacy regulations, and the unique demands of remote care delivery. The practitioner must balance the need for timely intervention with the imperative to maintain data security and obtain informed consent in a non-traditional setting. The rapid evolution of digital health tools and platforms necessitates a constant awareness of best practices and regulatory compliance to ensure patient safety and trust. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves proactively establishing clear communication protocols and obtaining explicit, informed consent for the specific digital health services being provided. This includes detailing how patient data will be collected, stored, accessed, and protected, as well as outlining the limitations of telemedicine and the procedures for escalating care when necessary. This approach directly addresses the ethical and regulatory requirements for patient autonomy, privacy, and the provision of safe, effective care, aligning with principles of good medical practice and data protection laws. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves proceeding with the consultation without explicitly confirming the patient’s understanding of the digital platform’s security features and data handling policies. This fails to uphold the principle of informed consent, as the patient may not be fully aware of the risks associated with transmitting sensitive health information digitally. It also potentially violates data protection regulations by not ensuring the patient has agreed to the specific terms of data usage in the telemedicine context. Another incorrect approach is to assume that general consent for medical treatment automatically covers the use of a specific digital health platform and its associated data practices. This overlooks the unique privacy and security considerations inherent in telemedicine. Without specific consent for the digital modality, the practitioner risks breaching patient confidentiality and failing to meet regulatory obligations regarding data privacy. A third incorrect approach is to delay addressing potential technical issues or data security concerns until they arise during the consultation. This reactive stance is professionally unsound. It prioritizes expediency over patient safety and privacy, potentially exposing sensitive information or disrupting care. Proactive measures are essential in digital health to prevent breaches and ensure a secure, reliable patient experience. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a proactive and transparent approach. This involves a thorough understanding of the digital tools being used, their security features, and relevant data protection laws. Before initiating a telemedicine consultation, practitioners should clearly communicate the nature of the service, the platform’s capabilities and limitations, and how patient data will be managed. Obtaining explicit, informed consent for the specific digital interaction is paramount. A structured process for risk assessment and mitigation, including contingency plans for technical failures or emergencies, should be in place. Continuous professional development in digital health best practices and regulatory updates is also crucial.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexities of cross-border digital health services. Navigating differing regulatory landscapes, ensuring patient data privacy across jurisdictions, and maintaining licensure in multiple regions requires meticulous attention to detail and a proactive understanding of legal and ethical obligations. The core challenge lies in balancing the accessibility of telemedicine with the imperative to comply with all applicable laws, thereby protecting both the patient and the practitioner. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves proactively identifying and adhering to the specific licensure requirements of each jurisdiction where a patient is located at the time of consultation. This approach prioritizes patient safety and regulatory compliance by ensuring that the practitioner is legally authorized to provide care in the patient’s geographical area. This aligns with the ethical principle of practicing within one’s scope of licensure and adhering to the legal framework governing healthcare delivery, which is paramount in telemedicine to prevent unauthorized practice and ensure accountability. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves assuming that a license in the practitioner’s home jurisdiction is sufficient for all remote consultations. This fails to acknowledge that healthcare is regulated at a jurisdictional level, and providing care to a patient in another state or country without proper licensure constitutes practicing medicine without a license, a serious regulatory violation with potential legal and disciplinary consequences. Another incorrect approach is to only seek licensure in a jurisdiction if a patient explicitly requests it or if a complaint is filed. This reactive stance is insufficient as it places the onus on the patient or regulatory body to identify non-compliance. Professionals have an affirmative duty to understand and comply with the laws of the jurisdictions in which they practice, and waiting for an issue to arise is a failure of due diligence and ethical responsibility. A third incorrect approach is to rely solely on the digital health platform’s terms of service to dictate licensure obligations. While platforms may have internal policies, these do not supersede the legal requirements of individual jurisdictions. A practitioner remains personally responsible for ensuring they meet all licensure and regulatory mandates, regardless of what a platform might suggest or require. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a proactive and diligent approach. This involves establishing a clear process for verifying patient location at the outset of each telemedicine encounter. They should then consult the relevant licensing boards or regulatory bodies for each identified jurisdiction to determine licensure requirements. Maintaining an up-to-date record of all active licenses and renewal dates is also crucial. When in doubt, seeking legal counsel specializing in healthcare law and telemedicine is advisable. This systematic approach ensures that patient care is delivered legally and ethically, minimizing risk and upholding professional standards.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a healthcare provider to navigate the complexities of cross-border digital health regulations, patient privacy, and the ethical imperative to provide care while adhering to legal frameworks. The core challenge lies in balancing the desire to assist a patient in need with the strict requirements of licensure and data protection, which vary significantly between jurisdictions. Missteps can lead to regulatory penalties, loss of licensure, and breaches of patient trust. Careful judgment is required to ensure that all actions are compliant and ethically sound. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves verifying licensure in the patient’s jurisdiction before providing medical advice or treatment. This approach prioritizes regulatory compliance and patient safety. By confirming licensure in the patient’s location, the provider ensures they are legally authorized to practice medicine there, thereby adhering to the Frontline Pan-Regional Digital Health and Telemedicine Licensure Examination’s implied mandate of practicing within authorized geographical boundaries. This also respects the regulatory sovereignty of each jurisdiction and protects the patient from receiving care from an unlicensed practitioner, which could invalidate insurance claims and compromise the quality of care. This aligns with the ethical principle of beneficence (acting in the patient’s best interest) by ensuring care is delivered within a legally recognized and regulated framework. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Providing medical advice or treatment based solely on the assumption that a pan-regional license covers all areas, without explicit verification, is a significant regulatory failure. It disregards the principle that licensure is jurisdiction-specific, even within a pan-regional framework, and can lead to practicing medicine without proper authorization in the patient’s location. This violates the core tenets of the licensure examination, which aims to ensure competence and authorization within defined territories. Proceeding with treatment while initiating the process of obtaining licensure in the patient’s jurisdiction, but before it is granted, is also professionally unacceptable. This constitutes practicing medicine without a license in that specific jurisdiction, a direct violation of regulatory requirements. It exposes both the provider and the patient to legal and ethical risks, undermining the integrity of the digital health ecosystem. Relying solely on the patient’s self-declaration of their location and their perceived need for immediate care, without independently verifying licensure, is an insufficient safeguard. While patient urgency is a factor, it does not supersede legal and regulatory obligations. This approach risks overlooking critical jurisdictional requirements and could inadvertently lead to practicing without authorization, thereby failing to uphold professional standards and patient protection. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic decision-making process when encountering cross-jurisdictional telemedicine scenarios. This process begins with identifying the patient’s location and the nature of the medical service required. The next critical step is to determine the specific licensure requirements for practicing medicine in that patient’s jurisdiction. This involves consulting official regulatory bodies or reliable databases. If the provider is not licensed in the patient’s jurisdiction, they must either decline to provide direct medical services or guide the patient to seek care from a locally licensed practitioner. If licensure is required and the provider wishes to practice in that jurisdiction, they must initiate and complete the formal application and approval process for that specific jurisdiction. Throughout this process, maintaining patient confidentiality and adhering to data protection laws relevant to both the provider’s and the patient’s locations is paramount.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between rapid technological advancement in digital health and the established regulatory frameworks designed to ensure patient safety and data privacy. The need to integrate new evidence-based practices while adhering to licensure requirements across different regions necessitates careful navigation of legal and ethical boundaries. Professionals must balance the potential benefits of innovative care models with the imperative to operate within authorized scopes and comply with all applicable regulations. The correct approach involves a proactive and systematic process of verifying licensure and understanding the specific scope of practice permitted in each jurisdiction where a patient is located. This includes consulting official regulatory body websites, contacting licensing boards directly, and potentially seeking legal counsel if ambiguities arise. This method ensures that all telehealth consultations and treatments are conducted in full compliance with the laws governing the patient’s location, thereby protecting both the patient and the practitioner from legal repercussions and upholding professional standards. It directly addresses the core requirement of practicing only where one is licensed and authorized, aligning with the principles of responsible and ethical healthcare delivery in a pan-regional digital health context. An incorrect approach would be to assume that a license in one jurisdiction automatically grants the right to practice in another, especially when dealing with patients located in different regions. This assumption disregards the fundamental principle of territorial jurisdiction in professional licensing and could lead to practicing without a license, a serious regulatory violation. Another incorrect approach is to proceed with providing care based solely on the patient’s request or perceived urgency, without first confirming licensure in their specific location. While patient well-being is paramount, operating outside of legal authorization undermines the integrity of the healthcare system and exposes both the patient and the practitioner to significant risks, including invalidation of treatment and potential legal action. A further incorrect approach involves relying on informal assurances or the advice of colleagues who may not have up-to-date or accurate information regarding cross-jurisdictional licensure requirements. Professional decision-making in this context must be grounded in verifiable regulatory compliance, not hearsay or assumptions. The professional decision-making process for similar situations should involve a clear, step-by-step protocol: 1. Identify the patient’s location at the time of consultation. 2. Verify current licensure status in that specific jurisdiction through official regulatory channels. 3. Understand the scope of practice permitted by that license. 4. If licensure or scope is unclear or insufficient, do not proceed with providing direct medical advice or treatment until compliance is confirmed. 5. Document all verification steps and decisions made. 6. Seek expert advice (legal or regulatory) when faced with complex cross-jurisdictional issues.

The efficiency study reveals a critical juncture in the implementation of a new digital health platform. This scenario is professionally challenging because it pits the potential for improved patient outcomes and system efficiency against the fundamental ethical principles of patient autonomy, privacy, and the integrity of the healthcare provider-patient relationship. Navigating this requires a deep understanding of health systems science, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of clinical care, health policy, and patient experience, alongside robust ethical and professional conduct. The best approach involves prioritizing patient consent and data privacy above immediate efficiency gains. This means actively engaging patients in the decision-making process regarding the use of their data, ensuring they understand the implications of the platform’s data collection and utilization for the efficiency study. It requires providing clear, accessible information about what data is collected, how it will be anonymized or de-identified, who will have access to it, and for what specific purposes. Crucially, it necessitates obtaining explicit, informed consent from each patient before their data is included in the study, respecting their right to opt-out without compromising their standard care. This aligns with core ethical tenets of respect for persons and beneficence, ensuring that the pursuit of system improvement does not inadvertently harm or exploit individuals. Regulatory frameworks governing health data, such as those pertaining to patient privacy and data protection, would mandate such a process. An incorrect approach would be to proceed with data collection and analysis without explicit patient consent, relying on the assumption that participation in a healthcare system implicitly grants permission for data use in efficiency studies. This fails to uphold the principle of autonomy, as patients are not given a genuine choice about how their personal health information is used. It also risks violating privacy regulations and eroding patient trust, which is foundational to effective healthcare delivery. Another unacceptable approach would be to anonymize data without informing patients that their data is being used for such a study, even if anonymized. While anonymization is a crucial privacy safeguard, the lack of transparency and consent regarding the *use* of their data, even in an aggregated form, still infringes upon their right to know and control their information. This approach bypasses the ethical obligation to inform and obtain consent for research or system improvement activities. A further professionally unsound approach would be to selectively exclude patients from the efficiency study based on their perceived willingness to consent, thereby creating a biased dataset. This not only compromises the scientific validity of the study but also raises ethical concerns about fairness and equitable access to potential benefits derived from improved system efficiency. It could lead to a system that is optimized for a subset of the patient population, potentially disadvantaging those who are less engaged or more hesitant about data sharing. Professionals should employ a decision-making process that begins with identifying the ethical and regulatory obligations. This involves understanding the specific requirements for informed consent and data privacy within the relevant jurisdiction. Next, they should assess the potential benefits and risks of the proposed action (in this case, using patient data for an efficiency study) to all stakeholders, particularly patients. The principle of “do no harm” must be paramount. Finally, they should choose the course of action that maximizes patient autonomy, protects privacy, ensures fairness, and upholds professional integrity, even if it requires more time or resources.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires navigating the specific eligibility criteria for a specialized licensure examination designed to ensure competence in a rapidly evolving field. Misinterpreting or misapplying these criteria can lead to individuals undertaking the examination without the necessary foundational knowledge or experience, potentially compromising patient safety and the integrity of the digital health and telemedicine sector. Careful judgment is required to accurately assess whether an individual’s background aligns with the stated purpose of the licensure. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough review of the candidate’s qualifications against the stated purpose and eligibility requirements of the Frontline Pan-Regional Digital Health and Telemedicine Licensure Examination. This approach ensures that only individuals who possess the requisite knowledge, skills, and experience, as defined by the examination’s governing body, are permitted to sit for the test. This directly aligns with the examination’s purpose of establishing a baseline of competence for professionals operating in digital health and telemedicine, thereby safeguarding public trust and patient well-being. The examination is designed to assess a specific set of competencies relevant to pan-regional digital health and telemedicine practice, and eligibility is predicated on demonstrating a foundational understanding and practical exposure to these areas. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves assuming that any professional experience in a healthcare-related field automatically qualifies an individual. This fails to recognize that the digital health and telemedicine landscape requires specialized knowledge and skills that may not be present in traditional healthcare roles. The examination’s purpose is to validate proficiency in this specific domain, not general healthcare practice. Another incorrect approach is to focus solely on the duration of a candidate’s professional experience without considering its relevance to digital health and telemedicine. The examination’s eligibility criteria are likely to specify the *type* of experience required, not just the length of time. A candidate with extensive experience in a non-digital or non-telemedicine healthcare setting would not meet the specific purpose of this licensure. A further incorrect approach is to interpret the “pan-regional” aspect as a broad indicator of international experience, without understanding that it refers to the scope of practice and regulatory alignment the examination is designed to cover. Eligibility is tied to the specific competencies and understanding of cross-border digital health practices, not simply having worked in multiple countries. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a systematic approach when evaluating eligibility for specialized licensure. This involves: 1. Clearly identifying the stated purpose of the examination. 2. Thoroughly reviewing the official eligibility criteria, paying close attention to any specified educational prerequisites, relevant professional experience (including its nature and duration), and any required certifications or training. 3. Critically assessing the candidate’s submitted documentation against each criterion. 4. Seeking clarification from the examination’s governing body if any aspect of the eligibility requirements is ambiguous. 5. Prioritizing adherence to the established standards to uphold the integrity of the licensure process and ensure competent practice in the field.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it involves balancing the need for continuous professional development and adherence to licensure requirements with the practical realities of an individual’s circumstances. The examination board’s policies on blueprint weighting, scoring, and retakes are designed to ensure competency and fairness, but their application requires careful consideration of individual situations to avoid undue hardship or discriminatory outcomes. The core challenge lies in interpreting and applying these policies equitably. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional approach involves a thorough review of the examination board’s official policies regarding blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake procedures. This includes understanding how the weighting of different sections impacts the overall score and the specific criteria for passing. Crucially, it requires investigating the established retake policy, including any grace periods, limitations on the number of attempts, or specific conditions under which a retake might be permitted or require additional steps. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the established regulatory framework governing licensure. Adherence to these documented policies ensures fairness, consistency, and transparency in the licensure process, upholding the integrity of the examination and the standards of the profession. It prioritizes objective criteria and established procedures over subjective interpretations or personal appeals that lack a basis in policy. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach is to assume that a minor deviation from the expected score automatically warrants a special review or exception to the retake policy without first consulting the official documentation. This fails to acknowledge the established scoring and retake mechanisms, which are designed to be objective. Another incorrect approach is to focus solely on the perceived difficulty of the examination content without understanding how the blueprint weighting influences the overall score and the passing threshold. This overlooks the structured nature of the examination design. A further incorrect approach is to appeal for a retake based on personal circumstances or perceived unfairness without demonstrating how these circumstances directly relate to or are addressed by the examination board’s stated policies on retakes or appeals. This bypasses the established procedural safeguards and relies on subjective arguments that are unlikely to be considered without policy-backed justification. Professional Reasoning: Professionals facing such situations should adopt a systematic decision-making process. First, they must proactively familiarize themselves with the examination board’s official policies on blueprint weighting, scoring, and retakes. This forms the foundation for understanding the rules of engagement. Second, they should objectively assess their performance against these established criteria. Third, if a retake or appeal is considered, they must meticulously gather evidence and arguments that directly align with the provisions outlined in the official policies. This ensures that any request is grounded in regulatory compliance and procedural fairness, rather than personal appeals or assumptions.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexities of remote diagnostic reasoning, the critical importance of selecting appropriate imaging modalities, and the ethical and regulatory imperative to ensure patient safety and data integrity in a digital health context. The rapid evolution of telemedicine necessitates robust protocols that balance technological advancement with established medical standards and patient rights. Careful judgment is required to navigate the potential for misdiagnosis, the cost-effectiveness of imaging, and the secure handling of sensitive health information across digital platforms. The best approach involves a clinician, acting within their scope of practice and licensed jurisdiction, initiating a secure, encrypted telemedicine consultation. During this consultation, the clinician would conduct a thorough patient history and physical examination (as feasible remotely). Based on this assessment, they would then determine the most appropriate diagnostic imaging modality, considering factors such as diagnostic yield, patient condition, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness. The order for imaging would be placed with a licensed imaging facility within the patient’s accessible geographic region, ensuring that the facility adheres to all relevant local and national imaging standards and data privacy regulations. The resulting images would then be transmitted securely back to the ordering clinician for interpretation, or to a radiologist for interpretation, who would then communicate findings back to the patient and their primary care provider. This method prioritizes direct clinical assessment, evidence-based imaging selection, and adherence to jurisdictional licensure and data security requirements, thereby upholding patient safety and regulatory compliance. An incorrect approach would be to bypass a direct clinical assessment and rely solely on patient self-reporting or a referral from an unlicensed individual to order advanced imaging. This fails to establish a clear clinical indication for the imaging, potentially leading to unnecessary procedures, increased healthcare costs, and a violation of professional responsibility to provide evidence-based care. Furthermore, ordering imaging without a direct, licensed clinician’s assessment and order is often a regulatory violation and can expose the ordering entity to liability. Another incorrect approach would be to order imaging without considering the patient’s geographic location or the licensing requirements of the imaging facility and the interpreting clinician. If the imaging facility or interpreting radiologist is not licensed in the patient’s jurisdiction, it can create significant legal and regulatory complications, potentially invalidating the diagnostic process and exposing all parties to penalties. This also neglects the practical aspect of patient accessibility to the chosen imaging service. Finally, an incorrect approach would be to transmit patient imaging data and reports through unencrypted or insecure channels. This represents a severe breach of patient confidentiality and data privacy regulations, such as HIPAA in the US or GDPR in Europe, and can lead to significant legal repercussions, loss of patient trust, and reputational damage. Secure data handling is a fundamental ethical and regulatory requirement in digital health. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive clinical evaluation, followed by a reasoned selection of diagnostic tools based on established medical guidelines and patient-specific factors. This must be integrated with a thorough understanding of the regulatory landscape, including licensure requirements for both the provider and the diagnostic services, and strict adherence to data privacy and security protocols. When operating in a telemedicine capacity, the clinician must always ensure they are licensed to practice in the patient’s jurisdiction and that all associated services comply with local regulations.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because the candidate is facing a significant and time-sensitive examination with broad implications for their future in the digital health and telemedicine sector. The pressure to prepare effectively and efficiently, while also managing personal commitments, requires careful strategic planning. The core of the challenge lies in balancing the need for comprehensive knowledge acquisition with the practical constraints of time and available resources, all while adhering to the ethical and regulatory standards expected of professionals in this field. The best approach involves a structured, multi-faceted preparation strategy that prioritizes understanding the core regulatory frameworks and practical application of telemedicine principles. This includes dedicating specific time blocks for reviewing official guidelines, engaging with reputable industry resources that interpret these guidelines, and practicing application through case studies or mock scenarios. This method ensures that preparation is not only broad but also deep, addressing the nuances of licensure requirements and ethical considerations. It aligns with the professional obligation to be competent and compliant, ensuring that the candidate is prepared to practice telemedicine safely and effectively, respecting patient privacy and data security as mandated by relevant digital health regulations. An approach that relies solely on informal online forums and anecdotal advice is professionally unacceptable. This method risks exposure to outdated, inaccurate, or jurisdictionally irrelevant information, potentially leading to a misunderstanding of critical licensure requirements and ethical obligations. It fails to engage with the authoritative sources necessary for compliance and can foster a superficial understanding of complex digital health regulations. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to focus exclusively on memorizing exam content without understanding the underlying principles or regulatory context. While some factual recall is necessary, this method neglects the application of knowledge, which is crucial for real-world telemedicine practice. It does not equip the candidate to handle the dynamic and often complex ethical dilemmas encountered in digital health, nor does it demonstrate a commitment to the spirit of the regulations designed to protect patients and ensure quality care. Finally, an approach that prioritizes speed over thoroughness, such as cramming in the final days before the exam, is also professionally deficient. This method is unlikely to lead to deep retention or a nuanced understanding of the material. It increases the risk of errors and omissions, potentially compromising the candidate’s ability to practice competently and ethically. It suggests a lack of commitment to the rigorous standards required for licensure in a field as sensitive as digital health. Professionals should approach licensure preparation with a mindset of continuous learning and diligent adherence to established standards. This involves creating a realistic study schedule that allocates sufficient time for each topic, prioritizing official regulatory documents and reputable educational materials, and actively seeking opportunities to apply learned concepts. A commitment to understanding the ‘why’ behind regulations, not just the ‘what,’ is paramount for ethical and effective practice.

This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent complexity of integrating foundational biomedical sciences with clinical medicine in a digital health and telemedicine context, particularly when navigating evolving regulatory landscapes. The rapid advancement of technology and its application in healthcare necessitates a robust understanding of both the scientific underpinnings of diseases and treatments, and the legal and ethical frameworks governing remote patient care. Ensuring patient safety, data privacy, and equitable access to care while leveraging digital tools requires careful judgment and adherence to established guidelines. The best approach involves a comprehensive review of existing patient data, including relevant biomedical markers and diagnostic reports, alongside a thorough understanding of the patient’s clinical presentation and medical history. This integrated perspective allows for a more accurate assessment of the patient’s condition and the development of a safe and effective telemedicine care plan. This approach is correct because it directly addresses the core requirement of applying foundational biomedical knowledge within the clinical context of telemedicine. It prioritizes evidence-based decision-making by synthesizing all available patient information, aligning with ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and adhering to the spirit of licensure examinations that assess the ability to apply scientific knowledge to patient care. An incorrect approach would be to rely solely on the patient’s self-reported symptoms without cross-referencing with objective biomedical data or established diagnostic criteria. This fails to integrate foundational biomedical sciences with clinical medicine, potentially leading to misdiagnosis or inappropriate treatment recommendations. It overlooks the critical role of objective scientific evidence in clinical decision-making and violates the principle of thorough patient assessment. Another incorrect approach would be to prescribe treatment based on a general understanding of a condition without considering the specific patient’s unique biomedical profile, including any co-morbidities or contraindications identified through diagnostic testing. This demonstrates a superficial application of biomedical knowledge and neglects the personalized nature of effective medical care, increasing the risk of adverse events. Finally, an approach that prioritizes speed of consultation over the depth of scientific and clinical integration, leading to a rushed assessment and a treatment plan that does not fully account for the patient’s underlying biomedical status, is also professionally unacceptable. This prioritizes efficiency over patient safety and the rigorous application of medical science, undermining the core purpose of professional licensure. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s presenting problem, followed by a detailed review of all relevant biomedical data and clinical history. This information should then be synthesized to form a differential diagnosis, which is then refined through the application of evidence-based clinical guidelines and an understanding of the patient’s unique physiological and pathological state. Finally, a treatment plan should be developed that is both scientifically sound and clinically appropriate for the individual patient, with a clear understanding of the limitations and risks associated with telemedicine delivery.