PloS one · 2025
The role of telehealth in sepsis care in rural emergency departments: A qualitative study of emergency department sepsis telehealth user perspectives.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mohr Nicholas M, Merchant Kimberly A S, Fuller Brian M, Faine Brett, Mack Luke, Bell Amanda, DeJong Katie, Parker Edith A, Mueller Keith, Chrischilles Elizabeth, Carpenter Christopher R, Jones Michael P, Simpson Steven Q, Ward Marcia M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Sepsis is a leading cause of hospitalization and death in the United States, and rural patients are at particularly high risk. Telehealth has been proposed as one strategy to narrow rural-urban disparities. The objective of this study was to understand why rural emergency department (ED) staff use provider-to-provider telehealth (tele-ED) and how tele-ED care changes the care for rural patients with sepsis.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study between February 15, 2022, and May 22, 2023, with participants from upper Midwest rural EDs and tele-ED hub physicians in a single tele-ED network that delivers provider-to-provider consultation for sepsis patients. One interviewer conducted individual telephone interviews, then we used standard qualitative methods based on modified grounded theory to identify themes and domains.
FINDINGS: We interviewed 27 participants, and from the interviews we identified nine themes within three domains. Participants largely felt tele-ED for sepsis was valuable in their practice. We identified that telehealth was consulted to facilitate interhospital transfer, provide surge capacity for small teams, to adhere with provider scope-of-practice policies, for inexperienced providers, and for patients with increased severity of illness or complex comorbidities. Barriers to tele-ED use and impact included increased sepsis care standardization, provider reluctance, and sepsis diagnostic uncertainty. Additionally, we identified that real-time education and training were important secondary benefits identified from tele-ED use.
CONCLUSIONS: Tele-ED care was used by rural providers for sepsis treatment, but many barriers existed that may have limited potential benefits to its use.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study between February 15, 2022, and May 22, 2023, with participants from upper Midwest rural EDs and tele-ED hub physicians in a single tele-ED network that delivers provider-to-provider consultation for sepsis patients. One interviewer conducted individual telephone interviews, then we used standard qualitative methods based on modified grounded theory to identify themes and domains.
FINDINGS: We interviewed 27 participants, and from the interviews we identified nine themes within three domains. Participants largely felt tele-ED for sepsis was valuable in their practice. We identified that telehealth was consulted to facilitate interhospital transfer, provide surge capacity for small teams, to adhere with provider scope-of-practice policies, for inexperienced providers, and for patients with increased severity of illness or complex comorbidities. Barriers to tele-ED use and impact included increased sepsis care standardization, provider reluctance, and sepsis diagnostic uncertainty. Additionally, we identified that real-time education and training were important secondary benefits identified from tele-ED use.
CONCLUSIONS: Tele-ED care was used by rural providers for sepsis treatment, but many barriers existed that may have limited potential benefits to its use.