Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39119397›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Implementation Mapping of the Collaborative University of California Teleophthalmology Initiative (CUTI): A Qualitative Study Using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework.

Niloofar Radgoudarzi, Chhavi Gregg, Quinn Quackenbush, Glenn Yiu, Matthew Freeby, George Su, Sally Baxter, Christine Thorne, Rachel Willard-Grace

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Niloofar RadgoudarziOphthalmology, University of California San Diego Health, San Diego, USA.
Chhavi GreggInformatics Services, University of California San Diego Health, San Diego, USA.
Quinn QuackenbushFamily and Community Medicine, University of California San Diego Health, San Diego, USA.
Glenn YiuOphthalmology, University of California Davis Health, Sacramento, USA.
Matthew FreebyEndocrinology, University of California Los Angeles Health Systems, Los Angeles, USA.
George SuPulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California San Francisco Health Systems, San Francisco, USA.
Sally BaxterOphthalmology, University of California San Diego Health, San Diego, USA.
Christine ThornePrimary Care, University of California San Diego Health, San Diego, USA.
Rachel Willard-GracePrimary Care, University of California San Francisco Health Systems, San Francisco, USA.

Funding

San Diego Biomedical Informatics Education & Research (SABER)T15LM011271 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SHAMIM NEMATI · 2012 to 2026
$9.7M
Multi-modal Health Information Technology Innovations for Precision Management of GlaucomaDP5OD029610 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BAXTER, SALLY LIU · 2020 to 2024
$2.1M
NIH HHS DP5 OD029610NLM NIH HHS T15 LM011271
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background This study aimed to investigate the rationale, barriers, and facilitators of teleretinal camera implementation in primary care and endocrinology clinics for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening across University of California (UC) health systems utilizing the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Methodology Institutional representatives from UC Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Davis participated in a series of focus group meetings to elicit implementation facilitators and barriers for teleophthalmology programs within their campuses. Site representatives also completed a survey regarding their program's performance over the calendar year 2022 in the following areas: DR screening camera sites, payment sources and coding, screening workflows including clinical, information technology (IT), reading, results, pathologic findings, and follow-up, including patient outreach for abnormal results. Focus group and survey results were mapped to the EPIS framework to gain insights into the implementation process of these programs and identify areas for optimization. Results Four UC campuses with 20 active camera sites screened 7,450 patients in the calendar year 2022. The average DR screening rate across the four campuses was 55%. Variations between sources of payment, turn-around time, image-grading structure, image-report characteristics, IT infrastructure, and patient outreach strategies were identified between sites. Closing gaps in IT integration between data systems, ensuring the financial sustainability of the program, and optimizing patient outreach remain primary challenges across sites and serve as good opportunities for cross-institutional learning. Conclusions Despite the potential for long-term cost savings and improving access to care, numerous obstacles continue to hinder the widespread implementation of teleretinal DR screening. Implementation science approaches can identify strategies for addressing these challenges and optimizing implementation.

Indexed as

diabetic retinopathydiabetic screeningepis frameworkhealth services researchimplementation mappingimplementation science researchtelemedicine (tm)teleretinal program

Identifiers

PMID39119397
PMCPMC11309586

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.