Barriers and Facilitators to Teledermatology and Tele-Eye Care in Department of Veterans Affairs Provider Settings: Qualitative Content Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Veterans Affairs health care systems have been early adopters of asynchronous telemedicine to provide access to timely and high-quality specialty care services in primary care settings for veterans living in rural areas. Scant research has examined how to expand primary care team members' engagement in telespecialty care. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to explore implementation process barriers and facilitators to using asynchronous telespecialty care (teledermatology and tele-eye care services). METHODS: In total, 30 participants including primary care providers, nurses, telehealth clinical technicians, medical and program support assistants, and administrators from 2 community-based outpatient clinics were interviewed. Semistructured interviews were conducted using an interview guide, digitally recorded, and transcribed. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis summative approach. Two coders reviewed transcripts independently. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussion. RESULTS: In total, 3 themes were identified from participants' experiences: positive perception of telespecialty care, concerns and challenges of implementation, and suggestions for service refinement. Participants voiced that the telemedicine visits saved commute and waiting times and provided veterans in rural areas more access to timely medical care. The mentioned concerns were technical challenges and equipment failure, staffing shortages to cover both in-person and telehealth visit needs, overbooked schedules leading to delayed referrals, the need for a more standardized operation protocol, and more hands-on training with formative feedback among supporting staff. Participants also faced challenges with appointment cancellations and struggled to find ways to efficiently manage both telehealth and in-person visits to streamline patient flow. Nonetheless, most participants feel motivated and confident in implementing telespecialty care going forward. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided important insights into the positive perceptions and ongoing challenges in telespecialty care implementation. Feedback from primary care teams is needed to improve telespecialty care service delivery for rural veterans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".