Dai Pu , Peter Cameron , Wendy Chapman , Louise Greenstock , Lena Sanci , Michele L. Callisaya , Terry Haines
{"title":"Virtual emergency care in Victoria: Stakeholder perspectives of strengths, weaknesses, and barriers and facilitators of service scale-up","authors":"Dai Pu , Peter Cameron , Wendy Chapman , Louise Greenstock , Lena Sanci , Michele L. Callisaya , Terry Haines","doi":"10.1016/j.auec.2023.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Virtual emergency services have been proposed as an alternative service model to conventional in-person emergency department attendance.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55979,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Emergency Care","volume":"27 2","pages":"Pages 102-108"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588994X23000726/pdfft?md5=a85023194abb64604a7e204cd40725f2&pid=1-s2.0-S2588994X23000726-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2588994X23000726","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
Australasian Emergency Care is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to supporting emergency nurses, physicians, paramedics and other professionals in advancing the science and practice of emergency care, wherever it is delivered. As the official journal of the College of Emergency Nursing Australasia (CENA), Australasian Emergency Care is a conduit for clinical, applied, and theoretical research and knowledge that advances the science and practice of emergency care in original, innovative and challenging ways. The journal serves as a leading voice for the emergency care community, reflecting its inter-professional diversity, and the importance of collaboration and shared decision-making to achieve quality patient outcomes. It is strongly focussed on advancing the patient experience and quality of care across the emergency care continuum, spanning the pre-hospital, hospital and post-hospital settings within Australasia and beyond.