Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37891695›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2023

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 and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Meenal K KheterpalDepartment of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3135, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. meenal.kheterpal@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0460-6400
Ethan D BorreDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Udeyvir CheemaDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Matilda W NicholasDepartment of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3135, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Edward W CoonerDuke Primary Care, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Donna PhinneyDuke Telehealth Office, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA.
Kelly GagnonPerformance Services, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA.
Leah L ZulligDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Heather A KingDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Elizabeth J MalcolmDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Suephy C ChenDepartment of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3135, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.

Funding

Economic Evaluation and Research Prioritization of Adult Hearing Screening in the USF30DC019846 · NIDCD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BORRE, ETHAN D · 2021 to 2022
$88k
HSRD VA CIN 13-410NIDCD NIH HHS F30 DC019846
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTeledermatology (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.

methodsThe 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).

resultsAt 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Barriers and facilitatorsImplementation scienceTeledermatology

Identifiers

PMID37891695
PMCPMC10612341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.