A comparison of faxed referrals and eConsult questions for rheumatology referrals: a descriptive study.
Journal
CMAJ open
ISSN: 2291-0026
Titre abrégé: CMAJ Open
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101620603
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
13
1
2021
pubmed:
14
1
2021
medline:
20
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In Canada, wait times for access to specialized rheumatology services have increased, leading to new strategies to improve timely care; electronic consultations (eConsults) enable providers to ask specialists a clinical question using a secure platform, often reducing the need for a face-to-face visit. In this study, we sought to compare the types of referrals received through fax versus eConsult and to determine whether faxed referrals could be addressed using eConsult. We conducted a descriptive study of consecutive faxed referrals sent to a tertiary care centre between Feb. 1 and Mar. 6, 2017, and a convenience sample of eConsults directed to rheumatology between Feb. 1, 2015, and Sept. 30, 2016, through the Champlain BASE eConsult Service, an Ontario-based service. We reviewed all referrals and categorized them by clinical content and question type. A rheumatologist with experience completing eConsult referrals assessed faxed referrals for their suitability to be answered through eConsults. Descriptive statistics were generated. We analyzed 300 consecutive faxed referrals and 300 (of 470) eConsult referrals. Faxed questions more often pertained to rheumatoid arthritis (32/300 [10.7%] v. 17/300 [5.7%]), systemic lupus erythematosus (24/300 [8.0%] v. 10/300 [3.3%]), and polyarthritis (30/300 [10.0%] v. 18/300 [6.0%]). eConsults more often addressed abnormal serology without joint symptoms (27/300 [9.0%] v. 8/300 [2.7%]) and gout (15/300 [5.0%] v. 4/300 [1.3%]). Faxed referrals were more likely to have no specific question (116/300 [38.7%]), and eConsults were more likely to have more than 1 question posed (99/300 [33.0%]) and a drug-related question (67/300 [22.3%]). The rheumatologist identified potential benefit from eConsult in 216/300 (72.0%) faxed referrals and 55/59 (93.2%) declined faxed referrals. Despite differences in diagnosis between eConsults and faxed referrals, most faxed referrals showed the potential to be addressed through eConsult. Using eConsult may allow primary care providers to obtain answers to questions without requesting a face-to-face specialist referral, or provide support for patients awaiting face-to-face consultation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In Canada, wait times for access to specialized rheumatology services have increased, leading to new strategies to improve timely care; electronic consultations (eConsults) enable providers to ask specialists a clinical question using a secure platform, often reducing the need for a face-to-face visit. In this study, we sought to compare the types of referrals received through fax versus eConsult and to determine whether faxed referrals could be addressed using eConsult.
METHODS
We conducted a descriptive study of consecutive faxed referrals sent to a tertiary care centre between Feb. 1 and Mar. 6, 2017, and a convenience sample of eConsults directed to rheumatology between Feb. 1, 2015, and Sept. 30, 2016, through the Champlain BASE eConsult Service, an Ontario-based service. We reviewed all referrals and categorized them by clinical content and question type. A rheumatologist with experience completing eConsult referrals assessed faxed referrals for their suitability to be answered through eConsults. Descriptive statistics were generated.
RESULTS
We analyzed 300 consecutive faxed referrals and 300 (of 470) eConsult referrals. Faxed questions more often pertained to rheumatoid arthritis (32/300 [10.7%] v. 17/300 [5.7%]), systemic lupus erythematosus (24/300 [8.0%] v. 10/300 [3.3%]), and polyarthritis (30/300 [10.0%] v. 18/300 [6.0%]). eConsults more often addressed abnormal serology without joint symptoms (27/300 [9.0%] v. 8/300 [2.7%]) and gout (15/300 [5.0%] v. 4/300 [1.3%]). Faxed referrals were more likely to have no specific question (116/300 [38.7%]), and eConsults were more likely to have more than 1 question posed (99/300 [33.0%]) and a drug-related question (67/300 [22.3%]). The rheumatologist identified potential benefit from eConsult in 216/300 (72.0%) faxed referrals and 55/59 (93.2%) declined faxed referrals.
INTERPRETATION
Despite differences in diagnosis between eConsults and faxed referrals, most faxed referrals showed the potential to be addressed through eConsult. Using eConsult may allow primary care providers to obtain answers to questions without requesting a face-to-face specialist referral, or provide support for patients awaiting face-to-face consultation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33436454
pii: 9/1/E38
doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20200025
pmc: PMC7843073
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E38-E43Informations de copyright
Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: Erin Keely and Clare Liddy are co–executive directors of the Ontario eConsult Centre of Excellence, funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. They cofounded the Champlain BASE (Building Access to Specialists Through eConsultation) eConsult Service but do not retain any proprietary rights. Erin Keely answers eConsults through the service, less than 1 per month. After the study was completed, Krista Rostom began providing eConsult service through the Champlain BASE eConsult Service. Douglas Smith has completed eConsults through the Champlain BASE eConsult Service. No other competing interests were declared.
Références
J Rheumatol. 2016 Nov;43(11):2064-2067
pubmed: 27585684
Ann Rheum Dis. 2003 Feb;62(2):159-61
pubmed: 12525386
J Am Board Fam Med. 2015 May-Jun;28(3):394-403
pubmed: 25957372
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Jan;69(1):104-114
pubmed: 27110847
BMJ. 2000 Aug 12;321(7258):429-32
pubmed: 10938054
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016 Oct;68(10):1547-53
pubmed: 26815410
J Rheumatol. 2001 Sep;28(9):1944-51
pubmed: 11550958
Telemed J E Health. 2013 Oct;19(10):733-8
pubmed: 23980939
J Rheumatol. 2018 Jan;45(1):137-140
pubmed: 29093155
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015 Aug;67(8):1158-63
pubmed: 25623810
BMJ Open. 2014 Jan 31;4(1):e003888
pubmed: 24486677
J Rheumatol. 2014 Oct;41(10):1980-9
pubmed: 25179851
J Rheumatol. 2004 Jun;31(6):1200-5
pubmed: 15170936
Clin Rheumatol. 2000;19(6):450-4
pubmed: 11147754
Open Med. 2013 Jan 08;7(1):e1-8
pubmed: 23687533
Can J Public Health. 2013 Oct 31;104(7):e450-5
pubmed: 24495819