Improving Rural Health Through Telehealth-Guided Provider-to-Provider Communication
Authors: Totten Annette , Womack Dana M. , McDonagh Marian S. , Davis-O’Reilly Cynthia , Griffin Jessica C. , Blazina Ian , Grusing Sara , Elder Nancy 
Published: December 2022

Objectives. To assess the use, effectiveness, and implementation of telehealth-supported provider-to-provider communication and collaboration for the provision of healthcare services to rural populations and to inform a scientific workshop convened by the National Institutes of Health Office of Disease Prevention on October 12–14, 2021. Data sources. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of Ovid MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, Embase®, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We searched for articles published from January 1, 2015, to October 12, 2021, to identify data on use of rural provider-to-provider telehealth (Key Question 1) and the same databases for articles published January 1, 2010, to October 12, 2021, for studies of effectiveness and implementation (Key Questions 2 and 3) and to identify methodological weaknesses in the research (Key Question 4). Additional sources were identified through reference lists, stakeholder suggestions, and responses to a Federal Register notice. Review methods. Our methods followed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide (available at https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/cer-methods-guide/overview) and the PRISMA reporting guidelines. We used predefined criteria and dual review of abstracts and full-text articles to identify research results on (1) regional or national use, (2) effectiveness, (3) barriers and facilitators to implementation, and (4) methodological weakness in studies of provider-to-provider telehealth for rural populations. We assessed the risk of bias of the effectiveness studies using criteria specific to the different study designs and evaluated strength of evidence (SOE) for studies of similar telehealth interventions with similar outcomes. We categorized barriers and facilitators to implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and summarized methodological weaknesses of studies. Results. We included 166 studies reported in 179 publications. Studies on the degree of uptake of provider-to-provider telehealth were limited to specific clinical uses (pharmacy, psychiatry, emergency care, and stroke management) in seven studies using national or regional surveys and claims data. They reported variability across States and regions, but increasing uptake over time. Ninety-seven studies (20 trials and 77 observational studies) evaluated the effectiveness of provider-to-provider telehealth in rural settings, finding that there may be similar rates of transfers and lengths of stay with telehealth for inpatient consultations; similar mortality rates for remote intensive care unit care; similar clinical outcomes and transfer rates for neonates; improvements in medication adherence and treatment response in outpatient care for depression; improvements in some clinical monitoring measures for diabetes with endocrinology or pharmacy outpatient consultations; similar mortality or time to treatment when used to support emergency assessment and management of stroke, heart attack, or chest pain at rural hospitals; and similar rates of appropriate versus inappropriate transfers of critical care and trauma patients with specialist telehealth consultations for rural emergency departments (SOE: low). Studies of telehealth for education and mentoring of rural healthcare providers may result in intended changes in provider behavior and increases in provider knowledge, confidence, and self-efficacy (SOE: low). Patient outcomes were not frequently reported for telehealth provider education, but two studies reported improvement (SOE: low). Evidence for telehealth interventions for other clinical uses and outcomes was insufficient. We identified 67 program evaluations and qualitative studies that identified barriers and facilitators to rural provider-to-provider telehealth. Success was linked to well-functioning technology; sufficient resources, including time, staff, leadership, and equipment; and adequate payment or reimbursement. Some considerations may be unique to implementation of provider-to-provider telehealth in rural areas. These include the need for consultants to better understand the rural context; regional initiatives that pool resources among rural organizations that may not be able to support telehealth individually; and programs that can support care for infrequent as well as frequent clinical situations in rural practices. An assessment of methodological weaknesses found that studies were limited by less rigorous study designs, small sample sizes, and lack of analyses that address risks for bias. A key weakness was that studies did not assess or attempt to adjust for the risk that temporal changes may impact the results in studies that compared outcomes before and after telehealth implementation. Conclusions. While the evidence base is limited, what is available suggests that telehealth supporting provider-to-provider communications and collaboration may be beneficial. Telehealth studies report better patient outcomes in some clinical scenarios (e.g., outpatient care for depression or diabetes, education/mentoring) where telehealth interventions increase access to expertise and high-quality care. In other applications (e.g., inpatient care, emergency care), telehealth results in patient outcomes that are similar to usual care, which may be interpreted as a benefit when the purpose of telehealth is to make equivalent services available locally to rural residents. Most barriers to implementation are common to practice change efforts. Methodological weaknesses stem from weaker study designs, such as before-after studies, and small numbers of participants. The rapid increase in the use of telehealth in response to the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is likely to produce more data and offer opportunities for more rigorous studies.