Hospital-Level Implementation Barriers, Facilitators, and Willingness to Use a New Regional Disaster Teleconsultation System: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Authors: Boyle Tehnaz , Boggs Krislyn , Gao Jingya , McMahon Maureen , Bedenbaugh Rachel , Schmidt Lauren , Zachrison Kori Sauser , Goralnick Eric , Biddinger Paul , Camargo Jr Carlos A 
Published: June 2023

Background
The Region 1 Disaster Health Response System project is developing new telehealth capabilities to provide rapid, temporary access to clinical experts across US jurisdictions to support regional disaster health response.

Objective
To guide future implementation, we identified hospital-level barriers, facilitators, and willingness to use a novel regional peer-to-peer disaster teleconsultation system for disaster health response.

Methods
We used the National Emergency Department Inventory-USA database to identify all 189 hospital-based and freestanding emergency departments (EDs) in New England states. We digitally or telephonically surveyed emergency managers regarding notification systems used for large-scale no-notice emergency events, access to consultants in 6 disaster-relevant specialties, disaster credentialing requirements before system use, reliability and redundancy of internet or cellular service, and willingness to use a disaster teleconsultation system. We examined state-wise hospital and ED disaster response capability.

Results
Overall, 164 (87%) hospitals and EDs responded—126 (77%) completed telephone surveys. Most (n=148, 90%) receive emergency notifications from state-based systems. Forty (24%) hospitals and EDs lacked access to burn specialists; toxicologists, 30 (18%); radiation specialists, 25 (15%); and trauma specialists, 20 (12%). Among critical access hospitals (CAHs) or EDs with <10,000 annual visits (n=36), 92% received routine nondisaster telehealth services but lacked toxicologist (25%), burn (22%), and radiation (17%) specialist access. Most hospitals and EDs (n=115, 70%) require disaster credentialing of teleconsultants before system use. Among 113 hospitals and EDs with written disaster credentialing procedures, 28% expected completing disaster credentialing within 24 hours, and 55% within 25-72 hours, which varied by state. Most (n=154, 94%) reported adequate internet or cellular service for video-streaming; 81% maintained cellular service despite internet disruption. Fewer rural hospitals and EDs reported reliable internet or cellular service (19/22, 86% vs 135/142, 95%) and ability to maintain cellular service with internet disruption (11/19, 58% vs 113/135, 84%) than urban hospitals and EDs. Overall, 133 (81%) were somewhat or very likely to use a regional disaster teleconsultation system. Large-volume EDs (annual visits ≥40,000) were less likely to use the service than smaller ones; all CAHs and nearly all rural hospitals or freestanding EDs were likely to use disaster consultation services. Among hospitals and EDs somewhat or very unlikely to use the system (n=26), sufficient consultant access (69%) and reluctance to use new technology or systems (27%) were common barriers. Potential delays (19%), liability (19%), privacy (15%), and hospital information system security restrictions (15%) were infrequent concerns.

Conclusions
Most New England hospitals and EDs have access to state emergency notification systems, telecommunication infrastructure, and willingness to use a new regional disaster teleconsultation system. System developers should focus on ways to improve telecommunication redundancy in rural areas and use low-bandwidth technology to maintain service availability to CAHs and rural hospitals and EDs. Policies and procedures to accelerate and standardize disaster credentialing are needed for implementation across jurisdictions.