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

Kheterpal MK, Borre ED, Cheema U, Nicholas MW, Cooner EW, Phinney D, Gagnon K, Zullig LL, King HA, Malcolm EJ, Chen SC. Implementation evaluation of a teledermatology virtual clinic at an academic medical center. Implementation science communications. 2023 Oct 27; 4(1):130.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

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.