Utility, Appropriateness, and Content of Electronic Consultations Across Medical Subspecialties.


Journal

Annals of internal medicine
ISSN: 1539-3704
Titre abrégé: Ann Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372351

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 05 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 14 4 2020
medline: 2 9 2020
entrez: 14 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Electronic consultations (e-consults) can facilitate patient access to specialists, minimize travel, and reduce unnecessary in-person visits. However, metrics to enable study of e-consults and their effect on processes and patient care are lacking. To assess novel metrics of e-consult appropriateness and utility. Retrospective cohort study. Primary and specialty care practices at 2 large academic and 2 community hospitals of an integrated health system. Patients with e-consult requests to 5 specialties-hematology, infectious disease, dermatology, rheumatology, and psychiatry-between October 2017 and November 2018. The appropriateness of e-consult inquiries was assessed by review of medical records and defined as meeting the following 4 criteria: not answerable by reviewing evidence-based summary sources ("point-of-care resource test"), not merely requesting logistic information, having appropriate clinical urgency, and having appropriate patient complexity. Interrater agreement in assessments of e-consult appropriateness was assessed by the κ statistic. Utility of e-consults was assessed by the rate of avoided visits (AVs), defined by the absence of an in-person visit to the same specialty within 120 days. Overall, 6512 eligible e-consults were made by 1096 referring providers to 121 specialist consultants. Inquiries were characterized as diagnostic, therapeutic, for provider education, or at the request of the patient. Most consultations were answered within 1 day, with variation across specialties (73.1% for psychiatry to 87.8% for infectious disease). Overall, 70.2% of e-consults met all 4 criteria for appropriateness; the frequency of unmet criteria varied among specialties. Raters agreed on the appropriateness of 94% of e-consults (κ = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79]), indicating moderate agreement. The overall rate of AVs across the 5 specialties was 81.2%; the highest rate was in psychiatry (92.6%) and the lowest in dermatology (61.9%). Generalizability is unknown outside a single integrated health system, where requesting and consulting providers share a common electronic health record. Novel metrics to assess the appropriateness and utility of e-consults provide meaningful insight into practice, provide a rubric for comparison in future studies in additional settings, and suggest areas to improve resource use and patient care. None.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Electronic consultations (e-consults) can facilitate patient access to specialists, minimize travel, and reduce unnecessary in-person visits. However, metrics to enable study of e-consults and their effect on processes and patient care are lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To assess novel metrics of e-consult appropriateness and utility.
DESIGN
Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING
Primary and specialty care practices at 2 large academic and 2 community hospitals of an integrated health system.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with e-consult requests to 5 specialties-hematology, infectious disease, dermatology, rheumatology, and psychiatry-between October 2017 and November 2018.
MEASUREMENTS
The appropriateness of e-consult inquiries was assessed by review of medical records and defined as meeting the following 4 criteria: not answerable by reviewing evidence-based summary sources ("point-of-care resource test"), not merely requesting logistic information, having appropriate clinical urgency, and having appropriate patient complexity. Interrater agreement in assessments of e-consult appropriateness was assessed by the κ statistic. Utility of e-consults was assessed by the rate of avoided visits (AVs), defined by the absence of an in-person visit to the same specialty within 120 days.
RESULTS
Overall, 6512 eligible e-consults were made by 1096 referring providers to 121 specialist consultants. Inquiries were characterized as diagnostic, therapeutic, for provider education, or at the request of the patient. Most consultations were answered within 1 day, with variation across specialties (73.1% for psychiatry to 87.8% for infectious disease). Overall, 70.2% of e-consults met all 4 criteria for appropriateness; the frequency of unmet criteria varied among specialties. Raters agreed on the appropriateness of 94% of e-consults (κ = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79]), indicating moderate agreement. The overall rate of AVs across the 5 specialties was 81.2%; the highest rate was in psychiatry (92.6%) and the lowest in dermatology (61.9%).
LIMITATION
Generalizability is unknown outside a single integrated health system, where requesting and consulting providers share a common electronic health record.
CONCLUSION
Novel metrics to assess the appropriateness and utility of e-consults provide meaningful insight into practice, provide a rubric for comparison in future studies in additional settings, and suggest areas to improve resource use and patient care.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
None.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32283548
pii: 2764585
doi: 10.7326/M19-3852
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

641-647

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

Salman Ahmed (S)

Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (S.A., Y.P.K.).

Yvelynne P Kelly (YP)

Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (S.A., Y.P.K.).

Tapas R Behera (TR)

Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (T.R.B.).

Michelle H Zelen (MH)

Partners Enterprise Data and Digital Health, Boston, Massachusetts (M.H.Z., R.B., A.E., A.L.).

Ifedayo Kuye (I)

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (I.K.).

Ryan Blakey (R)

Partners Enterprise Data and Digital Health, Boston, Massachusetts (M.H.Z., R.B., A.E., A.L.).

Susan A Goldstein (SA)

Massachusetts General Hospital and Massachusetts General Physicians Organization, Boston, Massachusetts (S.A.G.).

Jason H Wasfy (JH)

Partners HealthCare Center for Population Health Management, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (J.H.W.).

Alistair Erskine (A)

Partners Enterprise Data and Digital Health, Boston, Massachusetts (M.H.Z., R.B., A.E., A.L.).

Adam Licurse (A)

Partners Enterprise Data and Digital Health, Boston, Massachusetts (M.H.Z., R.B., A.E., A.L.).

Mallika L Mendu (ML)

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Partners HealthCare Center for Population Health Management, Boston, Massachusetts (M.L.M.).

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH