Study Objectives: The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic placed unprecedented strain on the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) in health care settings, particularly the emergency department (ED) Innovative strategies were needed for PPE conservation Our ED deployed electronic PPE (ePPE) - a telehealth approach to conduct medical screening exams (MSEs) of COVID-19-suspected patients As part of our plan to scale this intervention, we sought to evaluate provider perceptions of ePPE-based MSEs Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, TN Emergency clinicians were identified through use of structured ePPE documentation elements in the EHR Patients who received ePPE-based MSEs included English-speaking adults with fever or respiratory symptoms (inclusion criteria: age 94%;RR < 20;HR < 110;no cardiovascular, respiratory, or immunosuppressive history) We invited providers to participate in semi-structured video interviews (Zoom, San Jose, CA) A Likert scale between 1 [Not at all effective] and 5 [Extremely effective] was used to gauge perceived ePPE effectiveness We recorded and transcribed interviews, subsequently extracting then encoding notable excerpts using Dedoose (SocioCultural Research Consultants, Los Angeles, CA) Thematic analysis was performed using intervention characteristics from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): intervention source, evidence strength and quality, relative advantage, adaptability, trialability, complexity, design quality and packaging, and cost Results: We identified 18 clinicians who documented ePPE use On review, 2 never used ePPE and 5 only supervised other clinicians who used ePPE Of the remaining 11, we interviewed 7 attending physicians and 1 physician assistant between 5/15/20 and 6/5/20 Providers gave ePPE a mean effectiveness score of 4 2 (SD 0 53) Identified advantages included improved patient and provider safety, PPE conservation, and improved patient-provider communication The primary perceived limitation was inability to auscultate the lungs While noting the risk of missed alternate diagnoses (eg, heart failure), providers asserted that video-based history-taking and respiratory exam sufficed for low-acuity patients and that auscultation’s absence was unlikely to change management Beyond MSEs, providers used ePPE for patient reassessment and counseling, as well as to facilitate supervision Many emphasized ePPE’s flexibility: “If I do pick up on a few things…I can always, sort of, abandon [ePPE] and go in and do my exam ” Barriers to use included potential for negative patient perceptions, poor audio quality, difficulty incorporating an interpreter, and workflow challenges related to staff coordination Clinicians revealed that many ePPE encounters were not fully documented, suggesting ePPE use may be underrepresented in this study Conclusion: In this trial implementation of ePPE, we found that ED clinicians perceived ePPE as an effective and useful technique for MSEs of COVID-19-suspected patients The benefits largely outweighed the disadvantages, particularly in the low-acuity population Our study may have been limited by early adoption from clinicians favorable to such technology, and future work should examine perceptions among clinicians with varying degrees of technology comfort