Using Implementation Science to Understand Teledermatology Implementation Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Study

Abstract

Background Implementation science has been recognized for its potential to improve the integration of evidence-based practices into routine dermatologic care. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in rapid teledermatology implementation worldwide. Although several studies have highlighted patient and care provider satisfaction with teledermatology during the COVID-19 pandemic, less is known about the implementation process. Objective Our goal was to use validated tools from implementation science to develop a deeper understanding of the implementation of teledermatology during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our primary aims were to describe (1) the acceptability and feasibility of the implementation of teledermatology and (2) organizational readiness for the implementation of teledermatology during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also sought to offer an example of how implementation science can be used in dermatologic research. Methods An anonymous, web-based survey was distributed to Association of Professors of Dermatology members. It focused on (1) the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of teledermatology and (2) organizational readiness for implementing teledermatology. It incorporated subscales from the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment—a validated measure of organizational characteristics that predict implementation success. Results Of the 518 dermatologists emailed, 35 (7%) responded, and all implemented or scaled up teledermatology during the pandemic. Of the 11 care providers with the highest level of organizational readiness, 11 (100%) said that they plan to continue using teledermatology after the pandemic. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had sufficient training (24/35, 69%), financial resources (20/35, 57%), and facilities (20/35, 57%). However, of the 35 respondents, only 15 (43%) agreed or strongly agreed that they had adequate staffing support. Most respondents considered the most acceptable teledermatology modality to be synchronous audio and video visits with supplemental stored digital photos (23/35, 66%) and considered the least acceptable modality to be telephone visits without stored digital photos (6/35, 17%). Overall, most respondents thought that the implementation of synchronous audio and video with stored digital photos (31/35, 89%) and telephone visits with stored digital photos (31/35, 89%) were the most feasible. When asked about types of visits that were acceptable for synchronous video/audio visits (with stored digital photos), 18 of the 31 respondents (58%) said “new patients,” 27 (87%) said “existing patients,” 19 (61%) said “medication monitoring,” 3 (10%) said “total body skin exams,” and 22 (71%) said “lesions of concern.” Conclusions This study serves as an introduction to how implementation science research methods can be used to understand the implementation of novel technologies in dermatology. Our work builds upon prior studies by further characterizing the acceptability and feasibility of different teledermatology modalities. Our study may suggest initial insights on how dermatology practices and health care systems can support dermatologists in successfully incorporating teledermatology after the pandemic.