Key Components of Traditional Consultation Letters and Their Relevance to Electronic Consultation Replies: A Systematic Review

Exploring primary care physician feedback following an integrative oncology consultation

OBJECTIVE

To explore responses from primary care physicians (PCPs) from an integrative physician (IP) consultation and recommended integrative oncology (IO) treatment program.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-treated patients were referred by their oncology healthcare professional to an IP, a physician dually trained in complementary medicine and supportive cancer care. The consultation summary and patient-centered IO treatment program was then sent to the patient's PCP, with PCP-to-IP responses analyzed qualitatively using ATLAS.Ti software for systematic coding and content analysis. Trial Registration Number NCT01860365 published May 22, 2013.

RESULTS

Of the 597 IP consultations conducted, 470 (78.7%) summaries were sent to patients' PCPs, with only 69 (14.7%) PCP-to-IP responses returned. PCPs were more likely to respond if the patient was Hebrew-speaking (78.3% vs. 65.1%, P = 0.032). Systematic coding identified four predominant themes among PCP narratives: addressing the patient's medical condition and leading QoL-related concerns; patient-centered reflections; available resources providing support and promoting resilience; and PCP attitudes to the IO treatment program.

CONCLUSION

PCP-IP communication can provide valuable insight into the patient's bio-psycho-social care, addressing the patient's health-belief model, emotional concerns, caregiver-related factors, preferences, and barriers to adherence to IO care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Healthcare services should consider promoting IP-PCP communication in order to facilitate better patient outcomes from an IO treatment program.

Care coordination across healthcare systems: development of a research agenda, implications for practice, and recommendations for policy based on a modified Delphi panel

OBJECTIVE

For large, integrated healthcare delivery systems, coordinating patient care across delivery systems with providers external to the system presents challenges. We explored the domains and requirements for care coordination by professionals across healthcare systems and developed an agenda for research, practice and policy.

DESIGN

The modified Delphi approach convened a 2-day stakeholder panel with moderated virtual discussions, preceded and followed by online surveys.

SETTING

The work addresses care coordination across healthcare systems. We introduced common care scenarios and differentiated recommendations for a large (main) healthcare organisation and external healthcare professionals that contribute additional care.

PARTICIPANTS

The panel composition included health service providers, decision makers, patients and care community, and researchers. Discussions were informed by a rapid review of tested approaches to fostering collaboration, facilitating care coordination and improving communication across healthcare systems.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The study planned to formulate a research agenda, implications for practice and recommendations for policy.

RESULTS

For research recommendations, we found consensus for developing measures of shared care, exploring healthcare professionals' needs in different care scenarios and evaluating patient experiences. Agreed practice recommendations included educating external professionals about issues specific to the patients in the main healthcare system, educating professionals within the main healthcare system about the roles and responsibilities of all involved parties, and helping patients better understand the pros and cons of within-system and out-of-system care. Policy recommendations included supporting time for professionals with high overlap in patients to engage regularly and sustaining support for care coordination for high-need patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations from the stakeholder panel created an agenda to foster further research, practice and policy innovations in cross-system care coordination.

eConsult Specialist Quality of Response (eSQUARE): A novel tool to measure specialist correspondence via electronic consultation

High-quality correspondence between healthcare providers is critical for effective patient care. We developed an assessment tool to measure the quality of specialist correspondence to primary care providers (PCPs) via electronic consultation (eConsult), where specialists provide advice without specialist-patient interactions. We incorporated fourteen previously described features of high-quality eConsult correspondence into an assessment tool named the eConsult Specialist Quality of Response (eSQUARE). Six PCPs and two specialists applied the 10-item eSQUARE tool to 30 eConsults of varying quality as informed by PCP survey data. Content, response process, and internal structure validity evidence was gathered. Psychometric properties were calculated using descriptive statistics and generalizability analyses. Mean total score for low-quality eConsults (M = 24 ± 5.6) was significantly lower than moderate-quality eConsults (M = 38 ± 4.7; p<0.001) which was significantly lower than high-quality eConsults (M = 46 ± 3.0; p = 0.002). Reliability measures were high, including generalizability coefficient (0.96), inter-item (≥0.55) and item-total correlations (≥0.68). A decision study demonstrated that a single rater was adequate to achieve a reliability measure of ≥0.70. This study demonstrates initial validity evidence including multiple reliability measures for the eSQUARE. A single rater is adequate to achieve reliability measures for formative feedback. Future studies can apply the eSQUARE when planning educational initiatives aiming to improve specialist-to-PCP correspondence via eConsult.