Implementing a general practitioner-to-general physician eConsult service (eConsultant) in Australia.
Electronic consultation: general practice
General physician
Implementation
eConsult
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Oct 2022
24 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
25
05
2022
accepted:
04
10
2022
entrez:
25
10
2022
pubmed:
26
10
2022
medline:
27
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In response to lengthy wait times for specialist outpatient appointments, electronic consultation (eConsult) services have developed globally, providing asynchronous, secure and timely communication between general practitioner (GP) and specialist. This study aims to track adoption of a Queensland eConsultant service in two Australian Primary Health Networks (Western Queensland and Brisbane South) to understand key barriers and enablers to adoption and inform modification of the implementation strategy. METHODS: Our theory-informed mixed-methods evaluation assessed implementation between July 2020 and March 2022. Adoption and implementation activities were prospectively recorded in bespoke tracking spreadsheets with implementation activities coded against the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies. Semi-structured interviews with GPs and stakeholders informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) were conducted to understand determinants of implementation. RESULTS: Of the 40 practices invited to take part in the eConsultant service, 20 (50%) enrolled. Of the 97 GPs who consented, 38 sent at least one Request for Advice (RFA) to the eConsultant with a total of 112 RFA sent. Implementation was predominantly guided by eight strategies. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 GPs and 4 stakeholders (12 from rural/remote regions, 11 females and two sole practitioners). Interviewees felt the eConsultant service supported outpatient appointment avoidance and provided efficient, timely access to specialist support for GPs and their patients. Barriers identified to using eConsultant related to digital infrastructure, competing priorities, and keeping the service 'front of mind'. Key enablers identified were the relative advantage of eConsultant over other options, patient benefits and COVD-19 facilitating the use of digital technology. This evaluation highlighted service enablers as well as user priorities for broader implementation. A focus on a well-integrated digital system and availability of a variety of eConsultant specialties are seen as key strategies to embedding the eConsultant option in GP advice processes in Australia.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In response to lengthy wait times for specialist outpatient appointments, electronic consultation (eConsult) services have developed globally, providing asynchronous, secure and timely communication between general practitioner (GP) and specialist. This study aims to track adoption of a Queensland eConsultant service in two Australian Primary Health Networks (Western Queensland and Brisbane South) to understand key barriers and enablers to adoption and inform modification of the implementation strategy. METHODS: Our theory-informed mixed-methods evaluation assessed implementation between July 2020 and March 2022. Adoption and implementation activities were prospectively recorded in bespoke tracking spreadsheets with implementation activities coded against the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies. Semi-structured interviews with GPs and stakeholders informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) were conducted to understand determinants of implementation. RESULTS: Of the 40 practices invited to take part in the eConsultant service, 20 (50%) enrolled. Of the 97 GPs who consented, 38 sent at least one Request for Advice (RFA) to the eConsultant with a total of 112 RFA sent. Implementation was predominantly guided by eight strategies. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 GPs and 4 stakeholders (12 from rural/remote regions, 11 females and two sole practitioners). Interviewees felt the eConsultant service supported outpatient appointment avoidance and provided efficient, timely access to specialist support for GPs and their patients. Barriers identified to using eConsultant related to digital infrastructure, competing priorities, and keeping the service 'front of mind'. Key enablers identified were the relative advantage of eConsultant over other options, patient benefits and COVD-19 facilitating the use of digital technology.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This evaluation highlighted service enablers as well as user priorities for broader implementation. A focus on a well-integrated digital system and availability of a variety of eConsultant specialties are seen as key strategies to embedding the eConsultant option in GP advice processes in Australia.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36280832
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08663-2
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08663-2
pmc: PMC9589630
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1278Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Med J Aust. 2015 Oct 5;203(7):283-4
pubmed: 26424059
Aust J Gen Pract. 2021 Nov;50(11):857-862
pubmed: 34713290
Fam Pract. 2016 Jun;33(3):274-85
pubmed: 27075028
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Healthc Policy. 2017 Nov;13(2):79-95
pubmed: 29274229
Front Public Health. 2018 May 07;6:136
pubmed: 29868544
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Jun 3;18(1):57
pubmed: 32493357
J Telemed Telecare. 2019 Sep;25(8):499-505
pubmed: 29973131
Telemed J E Health. 2013 Oct;19(10):733-8
pubmed: 23980939
Trials. 2019 Jun 10;20(1):348
pubmed: 31182123
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Dec 19;15:568
pubmed: 26687507
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Oct 24;18(1):814
pubmed: 30355346
Ann Fam Med. 2018 Mar;16(2):120-126
pubmed: 29531102
Am J Manag Care. 2020 Jan 1;26(1):e21-e27
pubmed: 31951363
J Telemed Telecare. 2017 Feb;23(2):217-224
pubmed: 26940797
Telemed J E Health. 2019 Mar;25(3):184-198
pubmed: 29927711
Milbank Q. 2016 Jun;94(2):392-429
pubmed: 27265562
J Am Board Fam Med. 2015 May-Jun;28(3):394-403
pubmed: 25957372
Psychiatry Res. 2019 Oct;280:112516
pubmed: 31437661
JMIR Med Inform. 2016 Feb 12;4(1):e6
pubmed: 26872820
Am J Manag Care. 2015 Dec 01;21(12):e640-7
pubmed: 26760426
NPJ Digit Med. 2022 Jan 27;5(1):13
pubmed: 35087160
Telemed J E Health. 2021 Sep;27(9):1039-1045
pubmed: 33252320
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Sep 13;4(5):e001629
pubmed: 31565409
Implement Sci. 2020 Sep 25;15(1):84
pubmed: 32988389
Implement Sci. 2013 Dec 01;8:139
pubmed: 24289295
J Telemed Telecare. 2018 Aug;24(7):465-472
pubmed: 28614974
Healthc (Amst). 2017 Mar;5(1-2):40-45
pubmed: 27469441
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug;34(8):1427-1433
pubmed: 31197734
J Telemed Telecare. 2015 Sep;21(6):323-30
pubmed: 25995331
Telemed J E Health. 2013 Dec;19(12):982-90
pubmed: 24073898
Fam Med. 2019 Jul;51(7):567-573
pubmed: 31287902
Ann Fam Med. 2016 Mar;14(2):133-40
pubmed: 26951588
Open Med. 2013 Jan 08;7(1):e1-8
pubmed: 23687533
Fam Pract. 2018 Jan 16;35(1):93-98
pubmed: 28968806
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426
Healthc (Amst). 2018 Mar;6(1):17-22
pubmed: 28162990
Implement Sci. 2015 Feb 12;10:21
pubmed: 25889199
J Telemed Telecare. 2016 Jul;22(5):269-76
pubmed: 26395892
Telemed J E Health. 2019 Jan;25(1):3-10
pubmed: 29746210
Inquiry. 2020 Jan-Dec;57:46958020910305
pubmed: 32349581
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Feb 23;15(1):15
pubmed: 28231801