Implementation Science Communications (Oct 2023)

Implementation evaluation of a teledermatology virtual clinic at an academic medical center

  • Meenal K. Kheterpal,
  • Ethan D. Borre,
  • Udeyvir Cheema,
  • Matilda W. Nicholas,
  • Edward W. Cooner,
  • Donna Phinney,
  • Kelly Gagnon,
  • Leah L. Zullig,
  • Heather A. King,
  • Elizabeth J. Malcolm,
  • Suephy C. Chen

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-023-00508-1
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 4, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Teledermatology (TD) is an evidence-based practice that may increase access to dermatologic care. We sought to use the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) and the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) frameworks to evaluate implementation of TD at Duke. Methods The EPIS and RE-AIM frameworks were deployed to design and implement a TD program that leveraged the strengths of the Duke University Health System and addressed previously reported barriers to implementation of store-and-forward and synchronous TD models. In the resultant hybrid TD model, trained primary care providers (PCPs) sent e-comm referrals with clinical and dermatoscopic images to dermatology. These e-consults were reviewed asynchronously and patients were scheduled for a synchronous video visit with dermatology within days. Dermatologists managed the patient plan. This hybrid TD model was piloted at four primary care clinics. Pertinent outcomes from a TD-adapted RE-AIM framework were tracked using electronic health record data. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a post-video visit survey (n = 18). Implementation barriers and facilitators were also collected through provider surveys (n = 24 PCPs, n = 10 dermatologists, n = 10 dermatology residents). Results At four PCP clinics throughout 9/1/2021–4/30/2022, there were 218 TD referrals. Video visits occurred on average 7.5 ± 0.5 days after referral and 18/18 patients completing the post-visit survey were satisfied. Adoption varied between clinics, with one placing 22% of all dermatology referrals as TD and another placing 2%. The primary PCP barriers to TD were time burdens, lack of fit in clinic flow, and discomfort with image taking. Top-endorsed potential facilitating interventions included allowing for rash referrals without dermoscopy and assurance for clinical evaluation within 3 days. Conclusions The use of implementation science frameworks allowed for identification of system and contextual strengths which informed the hybrid TD pilot. Barriers and facilitating interventions will provide guidance for expansion and ongoing maintenance of TD.

Keywords