Lynne V McFarland1, Gregory J Raugi, Gayle E Reiber. 1. 1 Health Services Research and Development , VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of a multisite rural teledermatology project between 2009 and 2012 in four Pacific Northwest states that trained primary care providers and imaging technicians in state-of-the-art techniques of telemedicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2012, we assessed provider and imaging technician acceptability and satisfaction with a 32-item survey instrument based on the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire developed by Ware et al. (Eval Program Plann 1983;6:247-63) and modified for telemedicine by Kraai et al. (J Card Fail 2011;17:684-690). Survey questions covered eight satisfaction domains: interpersonal manner, technical quality, accessibility, finances, efficacy, continuity, physical environment, and availability. RESULTS: Overall, 71% of the primary care providers and 94% of the imaging technicians reported being satisfied or extremely satisfied with the teledermatology project. Most (95%) providers found the continuing education classes on dermatology diagnosis and treatment topics useful, and 86% reported teledermatology was a good addition to regular patient services. Most (97%) of the imaging technicians were satisfied with the ability of teledermatology to improve the description of dermatology conditions using images of the lesions or rashes, and 91% were satisfied with the convenience of teledermatology. Challenges reported by both providers and imaging technicians include an increase in workload due to more patient visits related to dermatology care and limited information technology support. CONCLUSIONS: Given the Veterans Health Administration's initiatives to promote accessible health care to underserved Veterans using telehealth, these findings can inform future program designs for teledermatology.
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of a multisite rural teledermatology project between 2009 and 2012 in four Pacific Northwest states that trained primary care providers and imaging technicians in state-of-the-art techniques of telemedicine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2012, we assessed provider and imaging technician acceptability and satisfaction with a 32-item survey instrument based on the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire developed by Ware et al. (Eval Program Plann 1983;6:247-63) and modified for telemedicine by Kraai et al. (J Card Fail 2011;17:684-690). Survey questions covered eight satisfaction domains: interpersonal manner, technical quality, accessibility, finances, efficacy, continuity, physical environment, and availability. RESULTS: Overall, 71% of the primary care providers and 94% of the imaging technicians reported being satisfied or extremely satisfied with the teledermatology project. Most (95%) providers found the continuing education classes on dermatology diagnosis and treatment topics useful, and 86% reported teledermatology was a good addition to regular patient services. Most (97%) of the imaging technicians were satisfied with the ability of teledermatology to improve the description of dermatology conditions using images of the lesions or rashes, and 91% were satisfied with the convenience of teledermatology. Challenges reported by both providers and imaging technicians include an increase in workload due to more patient visits related to dermatology care and limited information technology support. CONCLUSIONS: Given the Veterans Health Administration's initiatives to promote accessible health care to underserved Veterans using telehealth, these findings can inform future program designs for teledermatology.
Authors: Collin M Costello; Helen J L Cumsky; Connor J Maly; Jamison A Harvey; Matthew R Buras; Peter J Pallagi; Anna L Gustaveson; Davinder P Singh; Steven A Nelson; Mark R Pittelkow; Aaron R Mangold Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Rashid L Bashshur; Gary W Shannon; Trilokraj Tejasvi; Joseph C Kvedar; Michael Gates Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Michelle S Lee; Kristin N Ray; Ateev Mehrotra; Paul Giboney; Hal F Yee; Michael L Barnett Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Richard Marchell; Craig Locatis; Gene Burgess; Richard Maisiak; Wei-Li Liu; Michael Ackerman Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Thearis A Osuji; Mayra Macias; Carmit McMullen; Eric Haupt; Brian Mittman; Richard A Mularski; Susan E Wang; Henry Werch; Huong Q Nguyen Journal: Palliat Med Rep Date: 2020-10-06
Authors: Melinda Martin-Khan; Farhad Fatehi; Marina Kezilas; Karen Lucas; Leonard C Gray; Anthony C Smith Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Carolyn M Rutledge; Karen Kott; Patty A Schweickert; Rebecca Poston; Christianne Fowler; Tina S Haney Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract Date: 2017-06-26