The COVID-19 pandemic pushed telemedicine into the spotlight, accelerating its adoption across the healthcare system. Virtual care, especially synchronous forms like video visits, phone calls, and chat, became essential tools for ensuring patients could access care from home, work, or on the go. With consumer expectations shifting toward more convenient, accessible healthcare, these tools seemed to promise a more patient-friendly approach.
But there’s a myth many are buying into that these traditional video-based telemedicine visits are a cure-all for healthcare’s productivity and access problems. While these visits appeal to many patients, they don’t necessarily help providers manage their workload more efficiently or address the industry’s critical capacity issues.
The Telemedicine Efficiency Paradox
Telemedicine has the power to streamline healthcare delivery, but early data shows that traditional telemedicine is less efficient for providers than many had hoped. Sure, taking visits from home or a single clinic location may reduce commute time, but that doesn’t translate into reducing the time it takes to deliver care. In fact, when you look deeper, traditional video visits often require as much, if not more, time and effort from providers than in-person visits.
A New York University Langone Health study explored providers’ productivity using video-based telemedicine technology. The results may be surprising: providers who conducted more video visits ended up spending more time on EHR-based “work-outside-work” (WOW), or “pajama time,” than their peers who saw patients in person. This work burden increased over time, even beyond the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study suggests that traditional synchronous telemedicine is less efficient than in-person care, contributing to physician burnout and increasing after-hours work.
Meanwhile, rushed virtual visits can compromise care quality and patient satisfaction. While patients may appreciate the convenience of saving travel time, it doesn’t necessarily lead to better outcomes or lower costs.
The Case for Asynchronous Telemedicine
Enter asynchronous telemedicine—a game changer in the virtual care landscape. As we’ve discussed in our previous blog on hybrid care, asynchronous telemedicine doesn’t require real-time interaction between the patient and provider. Instead, it allows patients to submit information, such as symptoms or medical history, on their own schedule. Providers can then assess this information and offer treatment recommendations without needing immediate back-and-forth.
Fabric’s asynchronous-first virtual care platform, for example, supports over 2,000 unique diagnoses, giving providers the flexibility to handle a patient’s case appropriately by:
- Diagnosing and treating completely asynchronously
- Stepping up to other modes of care (phone, chat, or video) to gather more information
- Triaging and routing a patient to the appropriate point of care
The Impact of Asynchronous Care on Provider Efficiency
The true power of asynchronous telemedicine is its ability to reduce the work time providers spend on each appointment dramatically. For cases that can be diagnosed fully asynchronously, providers spend just 89 seconds per visit. This represents a massive reduction in the work burden compared to traditional video visits, which typically involve much longer interaction times.
By handling patient intake and symptom gathering upfront, asynchronous platforms ensure patients are escalated to video, chat, or in-person visits when necessary. This means that providers can spend less time on routine tasks like taking patient histories and asking repeat questions and dedicate their time to more complex cases that require their expertise.
One independent primary care provider was able to scale her practice tenfold using Fabric’s async technology without needing any additional staff to manage the increase in volume. Download the study.
Making Video Visits More Efficient with Asynchronous Intake
Asynchronous care doesn’t just apply to standalone virtual visits—it can also be integrated into video visits to increase efficiency. Using clinical automation for patient intake and symptom-gathering, asynchronous tools can act as a pre-interview, gathering essential information and adapting based on patient inputs. The result is a well-organized, easy-to-read SOAP-style note that providers can review before the video consultation.
This approach reduces the time a provider spends asking standard questions and documenting information, allowing them to focus on diagnosing and treating the patient more effectively. Compared to traditional video visits, those that integrate asynchronous symptom gathering are 2-4 times more efficient, giving providers more time to see additional patients, improving the quality of care, and reducing burnout.
Learn how WellNow Urgent Care used this strategy to save nearly nine minutes of clinical work time per video visit. Download the study.
Moving Beyond Traditional Telemedicine
The initial promise of telemedicine was that it would make healthcare more convenient and accessible for patients and providers. However, as the evidence shows, traditional video visits are not the solution to the healthcare industry’s efficiency challenges. They may offer convenience for patients, but they don’t significantly reduce the time providers spend on each case or address the ongoing issue of physician workload and burnout.
Asynchronous-first telemedicine is just one component of an effective end-to-end care enablement system. By combining async workflows with a conversational AI assistant at the Digital Front Door®, automated patient engagement, and virtual-first intake and care guides for in-clinic visits, healthcare organizations can offer a more sustainable and efficient model for care delivery.
Learn more about creating clinical capacity with async and beyond in our Guide to Digital Transformation and Care Enablement.
