Stakeholders' Initial Experience With Telemedicine Services Introduced at 13 Government Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh, India During the COVID-19 Lockdown: A Qualitative Study.

Background: India went into a stringent lockdown in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in March 2020, and routine outpatient and elective health services were suspended. Thus, access to healthcare services got significantly disrupted. To mitigate the impact, 21 state-owned medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh, the most populous and among the most resource-constrained states in India, had to hastily launch telemedicine (TM) services. This created an opportunity to understand how stakeholders would react to such services and what initial challenges could be faced during service delivery. Through this study, we explored the experiences of stakeholders from 13 such "new-adopter" TM centres with the main objective to identify the perceived benefits and gaps related to TM services, and what "people-centric" TM services could look like going forward.

Methods: We used an exploratory-descriptive qualitative design with a constructivist paradigm. Using interview schedules with open-ended questions and unstructured probes, we interviewed 13 nodal officers, 20 doctors, and 20 patients (i.e., one nodal officer and one to two doctors and patients from each of the 13 new-adopter centres) and stopped thereafter since we reached saturation of information. We analysed the data on NVivo (QSR International, Burlington, MA) and reported the findings using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist.

Results: The perceived benefits that were reported included non-dependency on physical contact, economic benefit, better management of patient load, and ease of access to healthcare services. The common gaps identified in the TM services were lack of physical clinical examination, impeded communication due to lack of face-to-face interaction, technological challenges (e.g., inconsistent internet connectivity and unavailability of smartphones), lack of human resources and resources to manage the TM centres, cumbersome compliance requirements coupled with unclarity on medico-legal implications, and limited awareness of services among clients. Need for adequate promotion of TM services through information-education-communication efforts and frontline workers, strengthening of logistics for long-term sustainability, setting up a dedicated TM department at the hospitals, capacity building of the existing staff, reducing gaps in communication between doctors and patients for better consultation, and improved access to the prescribed medicines were some of the suggestions from different stakeholders.

Conclusion: The stakeholders clearly appreciated the benefits of TM services offered through the new-adopter centres amidst the pandemic disruptions. However, there were certain gaps and unmet expectations, which, if addressed, could improve the TM centres' performance with further people-centricity and enhance healthcare access and the popularity of system-based services. Avenues for sustaining the TM services and their efficient scale-up should be explored.