Clinicians’ and healthcare leaders’ perspectives on suitability of virtual healthcare in metropolitan versus rural areas

Abstract

Australia’s geographically tiered health system is reinforced by long-term urban-centric policymaking. People in rural and remote areas have poor health outcomes, high preventable hospitalisations, and premature death. Virtual healthcare can improve access, but many clinicians and health service leaders (leaders) consider it substandard to face-to-face. This qualitative thematic study interrogated hidden meanings representing unconscious bias. Interviews were conducted with clinicians and leaders (February–July 2023, Queensland, Australia) to inform the design/delivery of a private virtual hospital. 26 participants: 5 leaders, 3 clinicians, 18 both leaders and clinicians. Three themes: (1) traditional face-to-face healthcare is better than telehealth; (2) virtual healthcare offers an opportunity for rural and remote residents with limited access to face-to-face healthcare; and (3) telehealth is better than nothing. Taken together, the themes indicate tacit acceptance of a lower healthcare standard for people in rural and remote areas. Acceptance of a lower standard may unconsciously negatively influence healthcare service design.