| Literature DB >> 30552249 |
Nicolae Done1,2, Dennis H Oh3,4, Martin A Weinstock5, John D Whited6,7, George L Jackson7,8,9, Heather A King7,8,9, Sara B Peracca3, A Rani Elwy10,11, Julia C Prentice1,2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Teledermatology has emerged as an important strategy to enhance access to high-quality skin care. VA Telederm is a provider-facing, web-based mobile app designed to integrate into the existing teledermatology workflow in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA). In this study, we will conduct a systematic evaluation of VA Telederm on access outcomes in VHA facilities using a pragmatic trial guided by clinical and operational leaders. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a prospective, stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial with cross-sectional exposure and outcome measurement via retrospective database analysis of administrative records. Each cluster is a VHA facility deemed eligible for the trial. We assign the intervention using a cluster-level balanced randomisation scheme based on facility size, baseline teledermatology uptake and geographic location. The trial will test whether patients receiving dermatological care at participating facilities will have better access compared with patients receiving care through the current standard process. The primary outcomes proxy for patient-level access to dermatology services, including (1) consult completion time for teledermatology consults; (2) appointment completion time for new dermatology consults; and (3) travel distance for dermatology services. As secondary outcomes, we will assess facility-level adoption outcomes, that is, the number of dermatology encounters and the proportion of teledermatology consults out of all dermatology encounters. To account for secular trends in outcomes and for correlation across individuals within clusters, we will assess the impact of the intervention using generalised linear mixed regression models. DISCUSSION: Streamlining the current practice for store-and-forward teledermatology in the VHA can improve access to expert dermatological care for US veterans. The lessons learnt in this trial could validate the use of mobile technology for consultative store-and-forward dermatology in a large healthcare organisation. The results may also be of interest to other medical specialties assessing the merits of implementing mobile telehealth. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 3; 7 November 2018. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03241589; Pre-results. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: dermatology; organisation of health services; telemedicine
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30552249 PMCID: PMC6303588 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022218
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Inclusion and exclusion criteria used for selecting the participating facilities and rationale for each
| Criterion | Rationale | |
| Inclusion | 1. Located within the continental United States. | VHA facilities outside the continental United States do not reliably report electronic medical record data to the CDW and/or do not have dermatology clinics. |
| 2. Greater than zero provider full-time equivalents practising dermatology. | Have a dermatology clinic on-site. | |
| 3. Higher than 0.1% and at most 8.8% of total FY2016 dermatology encounters at the facility were for teledermatology readings. | Already performing some teledermatology consults at baseline using the existing store-and-forward technology, but their total teledermatology encounter rates were below the median; based on prior experience, these sites were judged to be good candidates for implementing the new mobile app. | |
| Exclusion | Participating in pretrial mixed-methods formative evaluation. | Three facilities will participate in the formative evaluation, which will be conducted to inform the implementation of the mobile app; these facilities are located in Providence, RI, San Francisco, CA, and Denver, CO. |
CDW, Corporate Data Warehouse; FY, fiscal year; VHA, Veterans Health Administration.
Figure 1Current workstation-based teledermatology process in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
Figure 2Timeline and design features for the VA Telederm stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial (SW-CRT).
Study outcome measures and data sources
| Measure/variable | Data sources | Coding notes |
| Consult completion time | VHA CDW | Total time in days from consult request date to consult completed date following Pizer |
| Appointment completion time for new patients | VHA CDW | Total time in days from appointment create date to appointment completed date following Prentice |
| Travel distance for VA care | VHA CDW | Average driving distance from the centroid of the patient’s ZIP code of residence |
| Number of dermatologic encounters by type (in-person vs teledermatology) | VHA CDW | Volume of total dermatology visits, both in-person and via teledermatology (total and %); coded at facility level. |
CDW, Corporate Data Warehouse; OPES, Office of Productivity, Efficiency and Staffing; VA, Veterans Affairs; VHA, Veterans Health Administration.
Key results of power calculations under base assumptions
| Outcome | Average cluster size (per measurement occasion) | Treatment effect (Δμ or OR) | Parameter in control group (SD) | Parameter in treatment group (SD) | ICC | Power |
| Consult completion time | 120 | Δμ=−0.10 | μ0=27.8 (44.3) | μ1=25.0 (44.3) | 0.25 | 0.800 |
| 120 | Δμ=−0.10 | μ0=27.8 (44.3) | μ1=25.0 (44.3) | 0.30 | 0.800 | |
| 60 | Δμ=−0.15 | μ0=27.8 (44.3) | μ1= 23.6 (44.3) | 0.25 | 0.845 | |
| 50 | Δμ=−0.15 | μ0=27.8 (44.3) | μ1=23.6 (44.3) | 0.25 | 0.775 | |
| 60 | Δμ=−0.15 | μ0= 27.8 (44.3) | μ1=23.6 (50.0) | 0.25 | 0.798 | |
| 70 | Δμ=−0.15 | μ0=27.8 (50.0) | μ1= 23.6 (50.0) | 0.30 | 0.812 | |
| Appointment completion time | 200 | Δμ=−0.05 | μ0= 60.0 (50.0) | μ1= 57.0 (50.0) | 0.20 | 0.930 |
| 140 | Δμ=−0.05 | μ0= 60.0 (50.0) | μ1= 57.0 (50.0) | 0.20 | 0.820 | |
| 300 | Δμ=−0.05 | μ0= 60.0 (75.0) | μ1= 57.0 (75.0) | 0.20 | 0.800 | |
| 110 | Δμ=−0.05 | μ0= 60.0 (50.0) | μ1= 57.0 (40.0) | 0.10 | 0.809 | |
| 240 | Δμ=−0.05 | μ0= 50.0 (50.0) | μ1= 47.5 (60.0) | 0.10 | 0.814 | |
| 400 | Δμ=−0.03 | μ0= 60.0 (50.0) | μ1= 58.2 (50.0) | 0.30 | 0.830 | |
| Travel distance (miles) | 550 | Δμ=−0.03 | μ0= 13.0 (13.0) | μ1= 12.61 (13.0) | 0.20 | 0.812 |
| 300 | Δμ=−0.04 | μ0= 13.0 (13.0) | μ1= 12.48 (13.0) | 0.20 | 0.800 | |
| 300 | Δμ=−0.04 | μ0= 13.0 (13.0) | μ1= 12.48 (13.0) | 0.10 | 0.801 | |
| 300 | Δμ=−0.04 | μ0= 13.0 (13.0) | μ1= 12.48 (13.0) | 0.30 | 0.800 | |
| 500 | Δμ=−0.04 | μ0= 13.0 (13.0) | μ1= 12.48 (20.0) | 0.20 | 0.814 | |
| 1000 | Δμ=−0.03 | μ0= 10.0 (12.0) | μ1= 9.70 (15.0) | 0.10 | 0.812 | |
| Proportion of teledermatology encounters | 1700 | OR=1.10 | p0=0.03 | p1=0.0329 | 0.05 | 0.809 |
| 500 | OR=1.10 | p0=0.20 | p1=0.2157 | 0.05 | 0.844 | |
| 500 | OR=1.10 | p0=0.03 | p1=0.1089 | 0.25 | 0.837 | |
| 450 | OR=1.20 | p0=0.03 | p1=0.0358 | 0.05 | 0.830 | |
| 150 | OR=1.20 | p0=0.10 | p1=0.1176 | 0.10 | 0.831 | |
| 200 | OR=1.30 | p0=0.03 | p1=0.0386 | 0.10 | 0.828 |
μ0 is the mean of the outcome variable in the control group; μ1 is the mean of the outcome variable in the treatment group; p0 is the proportion of interest in the control group; p1 is the proportion of interest in the treatment group; Δμ is the difference in means between the treatment and control arms, that is, the expected treatment effect to be detected for continuous outcomes; OR is the odds ratio between the treatment and control arms, that is, the expected treatment effect to be detected for the binary outcome.
ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient.