TY - JOUR
T1 - Virtual emergency care in Victoria
T2 - Stakeholder perspectives of strengths, weaknesses, and barriers and facilitators of service scale-up
AU - Pu, Dai
AU - Cameron, Peter
AU - Chapman, Wendy
AU - Greenstock, Louise
AU - Sanci, Lena
AU - Callisaya, Michele L.
AU - Haines, Terry
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by the Victorian Department of Health (previously the Department of Human Services) as part of the Victorian Health Care Recovery Initiative (VCHRI ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2024/6
Y1 - 2024/6
N2 - Background: Virtual emergency services have been proposed as an alternative service model to conventional in-person emergency department attendance. Methods: Twenty participants were interviewed: 10 emergency medicine physicians, 4 health care consumers, and 6 other health care professionals. Conventional content analysis was performed on the interview transcriptions to identify perceived strengths and weaknesses of the VED, and barriers and facilitators to scaling-up the VED. Results: VEDs are perceived as a convenient approach to provide and receive emergency care while ensuring safety and quality of care, however some patients may still need to attend the ED in person for physical assessments. There is currently a lack of evidence, guidelines, and resources to support their implementation. Most of the potential and existing barriers and facilitators for scaling-up the VED were related to their effectiveness, reach and adoption. Broader public health contextual factors were viewed as barriers, while potential actions to address resources and costs could be facilitators. Conclusions: VEDs were viewed as a convenient service model to provide care, can not replace all in-person visits. Current policies and guidelines are insufficient for wider implementation. Most of the barriers and facilitators for its scaling-up were related to VED effectiveness and delivery.
AB - Background: Virtual emergency services have been proposed as an alternative service model to conventional in-person emergency department attendance. Methods: Twenty participants were interviewed: 10 emergency medicine physicians, 4 health care consumers, and 6 other health care professionals. Conventional content analysis was performed on the interview transcriptions to identify perceived strengths and weaknesses of the VED, and barriers and facilitators to scaling-up the VED. Results: VEDs are perceived as a convenient approach to provide and receive emergency care while ensuring safety and quality of care, however some patients may still need to attend the ED in person for physical assessments. There is currently a lack of evidence, guidelines, and resources to support their implementation. Most of the potential and existing barriers and facilitators for scaling-up the VED were related to their effectiveness, reach and adoption. Broader public health contextual factors were viewed as barriers, while potential actions to address resources and costs could be facilitators. Conclusions: VEDs were viewed as a convenient service model to provide care, can not replace all in-person visits. Current policies and guidelines are insufficient for wider implementation. Most of the barriers and facilitators for its scaling-up were related to VED effectiveness and delivery.
KW - Emergency medical services
KW - Emergency medicine
KW - Qualitative research
KW - Telemedicine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85174343166&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.auec.2023.10.001
DO - 10.1016/j.auec.2023.10.001
M3 - Article
C2 - 37852805
AN - SCOPUS:85174343166
SN - 2588-994X
VL - 27
SP - 102
EP - 108
JO - Australasian Emergency Care
JF - Australasian Emergency Care
IS - 2
ER -