|Clinician group||Coherence||Cognitive participation||Collective action|
|Urban clinicians||Low. Perception of telehealth did not cohere with that of other groups of clinicians. Perceived the service differently for rural than for urban patients.||Low. Do not see telehealth as a legitimate model of service for ‘real’ rehab patients (particularly urban patients).||
Interactional workability – low. Only suitable for high-functioning or remote patients (who have no option for face-to-face consults). Patient-therapist interactions would suffer due to narrowing of the scope of what can be seen and done via videoconference.|
Relational integration – low. Focussed on current patients rather than wider service delivery limitations
|Rural allied health clinicians||High. Clearly defined, differentiated and understood telehealth and its potential||High. Willingness to engage with telehealth as a model of service; viewed telehealth as a legitimate way to expand their services; looking at ways to create a community of practice utilising local health professionals.||
Interactional Workability – High. Promising way to provide access to services for rural patients who lack local services.|
Relational integration – High. Clear understanding of the wider health network and could see opportunities for using telehealth to link urban and rural services
Contextual integration: Low Considerable organization, systemic and technological infrastructure barriers
|Novice telehealth urban clinicians||Developing. Telehealth still conceptualised as an adjunct to traditional model of service.||Developing. Burgeoning acceptance of telehealth but retained concerns about the efficacy of telehealth for more severely impaired patients.||
Interactional workability – low to moderate. Agreed that a significant proportion of work could be done via telehealth but still felt that it was not suitable for significantly impaired patients.|
Relational integration – low. Conventional model of service seen as ‘core business’, with telehealth incorporated at their discretion, rather than embracing novel ways of working using telehealth.
|Telehealth clinicians||High. Clearly differentiated telehealth as a distinct model of service that required new ways of working.||High. Engaged with the service and were thinking about ways to expand its scope and make it work||
Interactional workability – moderate. Careful planning and improvements in technology required to maximise what can be done via telehealth|
Skill-set workability – questionable. Concerned that on the ground supporters of videoconferences adequately trained.
Relational integration – moderate to high Concerns about keeping up with rapidly changing technology to maintain working knowledge; forged supportive networks with residential aged care facilities
Contextual integration – Moderate Technological infrastructure and tech support required
Reflexive monitoring – High.
Re-conceptualised telehealth as a distinct model, rather than an adjunct to traditional models. Thinking about ways in which they could improve, expand and respond to challenges in providing their services via telehealth
|Residential aged care staff||High. Positive about the impacts of telehealth as a new service not previously available to their residents||High. Embraced the service and collectively enrolled.||
Interactional workability – High. Positive outcomes for residents. Teleconference as good as face-to-face.|
Relational integration – High. Established links with urban rehabilitation and geriatric services.
Skill-set workability – High. Displayed the skills to support interventions; increased their skill-set through doing so.