Primary Care Providers' Perspectives on the Ontario eConsult Program

Perspectives of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases on e-consultation in transmural care: a qualitative study : Is privacy really an issue?

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive cancer networks have been established to deliver high-quality care for patients with cancer. Logistic challenges are faced, when patients need to be referred for specialized treatments. Despite strengthened privacy legislations, digital platforms are increasingly used to consult specialists from dedicated liver centers or refer patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) for local treatment strategies. This qualitative study aimed to explore the perspectives of patients with CRLM regarding e-consultation of transmural specialists.

METHODS

A focus group study was conducted. Patients referred from regional hospitals to an academic liver center for treatment of CRLM were asked to participate. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic content analysis of data was conducted, comprising open, axial, and selective coding of the transcripts. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) were used.

RESULTS

Two focus groups were held, involving 11 patients and 8 relatives. Three major themes were identified with regard to e-consultation in transmural care: 'data management', 'expertise', and 'information and coordination'. Confidence in the expertise of physicians appeared most important during the course of treatment, as patients experienced uncertainty after diagnosis of cancer. Despite the privacy risks, use of digital communication platforms to contact experts in the field were strongly endorsed to improve eligibility for potentially curative treatment. Moreover, e-consultation of specialists may reduce waiting times, due to effective coordination of care.

CONCLUSION

Initiatives to improve medical data transfer between care providers were encouraged to achieve effective coordination of oncological care. The potential hazard of privacy violation associated with digital data exchange is accepted by patients and their relatives, provided that use of digital data improves patient's own health care, research or education.

Development of eConsult reflective learning tools for healthcare providers: a pragmatic mixed methods approach

BACKGROUND

Electronic consultation (eConsult) programs are crucial components of modern healthcare that facilitate communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists. eConsults between PCPs and specialists. They also provide a unique opportunity to use real-world patient scenarios for reflective learning as part of professional development. However, tools that guide and document learning from eConsults are limited. The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot two eConsult reflective learning tools (RLTs), one for PCPs and one for specialists, for those participating in eConsults.

METHODS

We performed a four-phase pragmatic mixed methods study recruiting PCPs and specialists from two public health systems located in two countries: eConsult BASE in Canada and San Francisco Health Network eConsult in the United States. In phase 1, subject matter experts developed preliminary RLTs for PCPs and specialists. During phase 2, a Delphi survey among 20 PCPs and 16 specialists led to consensus on items for each RLT. In phase 3, we conducted cognitive interviews with three PCPs and five specialists as they applied the RLTs on previously completed consults. In phase 4, we piloted the RLTs with eConsult users.

RESULTS

The RLTs were perceived to elicit critical reflection among participants regarding their knowledge and practice habits and could be used for quality improvement and continuing professional development.

CONCLUSION

PCPs and specialists alike perceived that eConsult systems provided opportunities for self-directed learning wherein they were motivated to investigate topics further through the course of eConsult exchanges. We recommend the RLTs be subject to further evaluation through implementation studies at other sites.

Implementing a general practitioner-to-general physician eConsult service (eConsultant) in Australia

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

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08663-2.

GP perceptions of telehealth services in Australia: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers have been rapidly transitioning from in-person to telehealth care during the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. There is an opportunity for new research in a rapidly evolving area, where evidence for telehealth services in primary care in the Australian setting remains limited.

AIM

To explore general practitioner (GP) perceptions on providing telehealth (telephone and video consultation) services in primary care in Australia.

DESIGN & SETTING

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to gain an understanding of GP perceptions on telehealth use in Australia.

METHOD

GPs across Australia were purposively sampled. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim for analysis. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis to identify initial codes, which were then organised into themes.

RESULTS

Fourteen GPs were interviewed. Two major themes that described GP perceptions of telehealth were: (1) existence of business and financial pressures in general practice; and (2) providing quality of care in Australia. These two themes interacted with four minor themes: (3) consumer-led care; (4) COVID-19 as a driver for telehealth reimbursement and adoption; (5) refining logistical processes; and (6) GP experiences shape telehealth use.

CONCLUSION

This study found that multiple considerations influenced GP choice of in-person, videoconference, or telephone consultation mode. For telehealth to be used routinely within primary care settings, evidence that supports the delivery of higher quality care to patients through telehealth and sustainable funding models will be required.