Scoping review identifies five training modes and a five-stage curriculum framework for virtual consultations among health professionals, highlighting a lack of standardized terminology and consensus.
AIMS: To map and synthesize which education and training programmes are available for current and future health professionals' competence in virtual consultations, with a special focus on training elements and structure. DESIGN: Scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR framework. METHODS: Studies describing structured education or training in synchronous virtual consultations were included. Data were charted and synthesised to map training modes, educational elements, and terminology. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus (September 2024; updated September 2025). Grey literature was also screened. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included. Five training modes were identified: simulation with standardised participants, avatar simulation, peer simulation, in situ training and Objective Structured Clinical Examination. A 5-stage curriculum framework emerged: pre-assess, prepare, conduct, follow-up and post-assess, followed by a catalogue of 34 diverse educational elements. Sixteen different terms were used to describe virtual consultations. CONCLUSION: Evidence demonstrates an increasing focus on virtual consultation training, and a descriptive framework for organising training emerged, however, no consensus exists regarding specific elements, curriculum structure, terminology, or outcome evaluation. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR THE PATIENT CARE: The identified framework may guide curriculum development and support competence building across health professions. IMPACT: This review addresses the lack of an overview of how virtual consultation training is structured. It identifies 34 core educational elements and a 5-stage framework. The findings support educators and clinicians implementing training in digital care. REPORTING METHOD: Reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR and EQUATOR guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lisbjerg et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: