Use of email for patient communication in student health care: a cross-sectional study

[Impact of the eConsultation on the primary care agenda]

OBJECTIVE

A «before and after» type observational study was carried out to assess the impact of the virtual consultation (eConsulta) on the frequency with which the patient visits their primary care center once they have had their first virtual consultation.

SETTING

Assigned population of the primary care center of Masnou-Alella and Ocata-Teià, Catalan Health Institute.

PARTICIPANTS

A random sampling was performed and 329 patients who engaged in eConsulta were compared with 329 statistically similar patients in age, sex and medical complexity who did not engage in eConsulta.

PRINCIPAL MEDIATIONS

Visits with primary care and nursing in their team are measured, both face-to-face, telephone and eConsulta, over the study period.

RESULTS

Patients who performed virtual consultations showed a previous frequent attendance in primary care higher than those who did not perform eConsulta (4.44 medical visits year/versus 3.11). Following the use of the eConsulta, after a year of follow-up, frequency was reduced to levels of the control group (3.16 medical visits/year versus 3.00). After the first virtual visit, patients reduced face-to-face visits by 28.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The eConsulta could be an effective tool to respond to the needs of patients who do not require a face-to-face visit, especially in the most frequent patients.

The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study

Background

There is international interest in the potential role of different forms of communication technology to provide an alternative to face-to-face consultations in health care. There has been considerable rhetoric about the need for general practices to offer consultations by telephone, e-mail or internet video. However, little is understood about how, under what conditions, for which patients and in what ways these approaches may offer benefits to patients and practitioners in general practice.

Objectives

Our objectives were to review existing evidence about alternatives to face-to-face consultation; conduct a scoping exercise to identify the ways in which general practices currently provide these alternatives; recruit eight general practices as case studies for focused ethnographic research, exploring how practice context, patient characteristics, type of technology and the purpose of the consultation interact to determine the impact of these alternatives; and synthesise the findings in order to develop a website resource about the implementation of alternatives to face-to-face consultations and a framework for subsequent evaluation.

Design

Mixed-methods case study.

Setting

General practices in England and Scotland with varied experience of implementing alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

Participants

Patients and practice staff.

Interventions

Alternatives to face-to-face consultations include telephone consultations, e-mail, e-consultations and internet video.

Main outcome measures

How context influenced the implementation and impact of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation; the rationale for practices to introduce alternatives; the use of different forms of consultation by different patient groups; and the intended benefits/outcomes.

Review methods

The conceptual review used an approach informed by realist review, a method for synthesising research evidence regarding complex interventions.

Results

Alternatives to the face-to-face consultation are not in mainstream use in general practice, with low uptake in our case study practices. We identified the underlying rationales for the use of these alternatives and have shown that different stakeholders have different perspectives on what they hope to achieve through the use of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation. Through the observation of real-life use of different forms of alternative, we have a clearer understanding of how, under what circumstances and for which patients alternatives might have a range of intended benefits and potential unintended adverse consequences. We have also developed a framework for future evaluation.

Limitations

The low uptake of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation means that our research participants might be deemed to be early adopters. The case study approach provides an in-depth examination of a small number of sites, each using alternatives in different ways. The findings are therefore hypothesis-generating, rather than hypothesis-testing.

Conclusions

The current low uptake of alternatives, lack of clarity about purpose and limited evidence of benefit may be at odds with current policy, which encourages the use of alternatives. We have highlighted key issues for practices and policy-makers to consider and have made recommendations about priorities for further research to be conducted, before or alongside the future roll-out of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation, such as telephone consulting, e-consultation, e-mail and video consulting.

Future work

We have synthesised our findings to develop a framework and recommendations about future evaluation of the use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

Funding details

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

What do we need to consider when planning, implementing and researching the use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations in primary healthcare?

Objectives

Communications technologies are variably utilised in healthcare. Policymakers globally have espoused the potential benefits of alternatives to face-to-face consultations, but research is in its infancy. The aim of this essay is to provide thinking tools for policymakers, practitioners and researchers who are involved in planning, implementing and evaluating alternative forms of consultation in primary care.

Methods

We draw on preparations for a focussed ethnographic study being conducted in eight general practice settings in the UK, knowledge of the literature, qualitative social science and Cochrane reviews. In this essay we consider different types of patients, and also reflect on how the work, practice and professional identities of different members of staff in primary care might be affected.

Results

Elements of practice are inevitably lost when consultations are no longer face-to-face, and we know little about the impact on core aspects of the primary care relationship. Resistance to change is normal and concerns about the introduction of alternative methods of consultation are often expressed using proxy reasons; for example, concerns about patient safety. Any planning or research in the field of new technologies should be attuned to the potential for unintended consequences.

Conclusions

Implementation of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation is more likely to succeed if approached as co-designed initiatives that start with the least controversial and most promising changes for the practice. Researchers and evaluators should explore actual experiences of the different consultation types amongst patients and the primary care team rather than hypothetical perspectives.

Electronic mail communication between physicians and patients: a review of challenges and opportunities

Although promising benefits hold for email communication between physicians and patients in terms of lowering the costs of health care while maintaining or improving the quality of disease management and health promotion, physician use of email with patients is still low and lags behind the willingness of patients to communicate with their physicians through email. There is also a discrepancy between physicians' willingness and actual practice of email communication. Several factors may explain these discrepancies. They include physicians differ in their experience and attitude towards information technology; some may not be convinced that patients appreciate, need and can communicate by email with their doctors; others are still waiting for robust evidence on service performance and efficiency in addition to patient satisfaction and outcome that support such practice; and many are reluctant to do so because of perceived barriers. This report is a review of the literature on the readiness for and adoption of physician-patient email communication, and how can challenges be or have been addressed. The need for Governmental support and directives for email communication to move forward is iterated, and opportunities for future research are pointed out.

E-mail communication in the management of gastroenterology patients: a review

E-mail correspondence between physicians and patients can be a useful tool to improve communication efficiency, provide economic and ecological benefits, improve therapeutic interventions and adherence, and enhance self-management. The model of self-management in chronic disease has become an integral component of North American and British medicine. From a practical standpoint, the use of e-mail between physicians and patients can complement the self-management model. E-mail communication has many benefits from both patient and physician perspectives. E-mail contact reduces the inefficiencies associated with telecommunications. Physicians are able to better document out-of-office patient encounters and provide access to specialist care for patients in remote locations. This use of e-mail has the potential to increase patient safety through physician approval of self-manager actions, including earlier initiation of needed treatments. Fewer clinic visits afford additional time for new consultations and sicker patients, reducing the overall burden on referral and wait times. The present article reviews some of the literature regarding physician-patient e-mail communication in the general ambulatory setting, in the context of chronic disease and with a specific focus on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The authors provide a framework for the use of e-mail communication in the IBD population, with emphasis on the concept of e-mail use. Also illustrated are the benefits and disadvantages, and examples of the e-mail contract as proposed by the Canadian Medical Protective Association. Examples of specific e-mail communication topics are provided for several IBD scenarios. Potential negative consequences of this mode of communication are also discussed.

Pediatric caregiver attitudes toward email communication: survey in an urban primary care setting

Background

Overall usage of email communication between patients and physicians continues to increase, due in part to expanding the adoption of electronic health records and patient portals. Unequal access and acceptance of these technologies has the potential to exacerbate disparities in care. Little is known about the attitudes of pediatric caregivers with regard to their acceptance of email as a means to communicate with their health care providers.

Objective

We conducted a survey to assess pediatric caregiver access to and attitudes toward the use of electronic communication modalities to communicate with health care providers in an urban pediatric primary care clinic.

Methods

Participants were pediatric caregivers recruited from an urban pediatric primary care clinic in Baltimore, Maryland, who completed a 35-item questionnaire in this cross-sectional study.

Results

Of the 229 caregivers who completed the survey (91.2% response rate), 171 (74.6%) reported that they use email to communicate with others. Of the email users, 145 respondents (86.3%) stated that they would like to email doctors, although only 18 (10.7%) actually do so. Among email users, African-American caregivers were much less likely to support the expanded use of email communication with health care providers (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.82) as were those with annual incomes less than US $30,000 (adjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.74).

Conclusions

Caregivers of children have access to email and many would be interested in communicating with health care providers. However, African-Americans and those in lower socioeconomic groups were much less likely to have positive attitudes toward email.

Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion

BACKGROUND

Email is a popular and commonly used method of communication, but its use in health care is not routine. Its application in health care has included the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review assesses the use of email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion, compared to standard mail or usual care, on outcomes for healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers, and health services, including harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register (January 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2010), EMBASE (1980 to January 2010), CINAHL (1982 to February 2010), ERIC (1965 to January 2010) and PsycINFO (1967 to January 2010). We searched grey literature: theses/dissertation repositories, trials registers and Google Scholar (searched July 2010). We used additional search methods: examining reference lists, contacting authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies examining interventions where email is used by healthcare professionals to provide information to patients on disease prevention and health promotion, and taking the form of 1) unsecured email 2) secure email or 3) web messaging. We considered healthcare professionals or associated administrative staff as participants originating the email communication, and patients and caregivers as participants receiving the email communication, in all settings. Email communication was one-way from healthcare professionals or associated administrative staff originating the email communication, to patients or caregivers receiving the email communication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For continuous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as mean differences (MDs). For dichotomous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as odds ratios (ORs). We conducted a meta-analysis for one primary health service outcome, comparing email communication to standard mail, and report this result as an OR.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six randomised controlled trials involving 8372 people. All trials were judged to be at high risk of bias for at least one domain. Four trials compared email communication to standard mail and two compared email communication to usual care. For the primary health service outcome of uptake of preventive screening, there was no difference between email and standard mail (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.24). For both comparisons (email versus standard mail and email versus usual care) there was no difference between the groups for patient or caregiver understanding and support. Results were inconclusive for patient or caregiver behaviours and actions. For email versus usual care only, there was no significant difference between groups for the primary outcome of patient health status and well-being. No data were reported relating to healthcare professionals or harms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence on the use of email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion was weak, and therefore inadequate to inform clinical practice. The available trials mostly provide inconclusive, or no evidence for the outcomes of interest in this review. Future research needs to use high-quality study designs that take advantage of the most recent developments in information technology, with consideration of the complexity of email as an intervention.

Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Email is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in health care is not routine. Where email communication has been demonstrated in health care this has included its use for communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals for clinical purposes, but the effects of using email in this way is not known.This review addresses the use of email for two-way clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of healthcare professionals and patients using email to communicate with each other, on patient outcomes, health service performance, service efficiency and acceptability.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to January 2010), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to January 2010), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1967 to January 2010), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1982 to February 2010) and ERIC (CSA) (1965 to January 2010). We searched grey literature: theses/dissertation repositories, trials registers and Google Scholar (searched July 2010). We used additional search methods: examining reference lists, contacting authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies examining interventions using email to allow patients to communicate clinical concerns to a healthcare professional and receive a reply, and taking the form of 1) unsecured email 2) secure email or 3) web messaging. All healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers in all settings were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For continuous measures, we report effect sizes as mean differences (MD). For dichotomous outcome measures, we report effect sizes as odds ratios and rate ratios. Where it was not possible to calculate an effect estimate we report mean values for both intervention and control groups and the total number of participants in each group. Where data are available only as median values it is presented as such. It was not possible to carry out any meta-analysis of the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials enrolling 1733 patients; all trials were judged to be at risk of bias. Seven were randomised controlled trials; two were cluster-randomised controlled designs. Eight examined email as compared to standard methods of communication. One compared email with telephone for the delivery of counselling. When email was compared to standard methods, for the majority of patient/caregiver outcomes it was not possible to adequately assess whether email had any effect. For health service use outcomes it was not possible to adequately assess whether email has any effect on resource use, but some results indicated that an email intervention leads to an increased number of emails and telephone calls being received by healthcare professionals. Three studies reported some type of adverse event but it was not clear if the adverse event had any impact on the health of the patient or the quality of health care. When email counselling was compared to telephone counselling only patient outcomes were measured, and for the majority of measures there was no difference between groups. Where there were differences these showed that telephone counselling leads to greater change in lifestyle modification factors than email counselling. There was one outcome relating to harm, which showed no difference between the email and the telephone counselling groups. There were no primary outcomes relating to healthcare professionals for either comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base was found to be limited with variable results and missing data, and therefore it was not possible to adequately assess the effect of email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals. Recommendations for clinical practice could not be made. Future research should ideally address the issue of missing data and methodological concerns by adhering to published reporting standards. The rapidly changing nature of technology should be taken into account when designing and conducting future studies and barriers to trial development and implementation should also be tackled. Potential outcomes of interest for future research include cost-effectiveness and health service resource use.

Email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders

BACKGROUND

Email is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in health care is not routine. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review considers the use of email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and reminders for attendance; particularly scheduling, rescheduling and cancelling healthcare appointments, and providing prompts/reminders for attendance at appointments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of using email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders, compared to other forms of coordinating appointments and reminders, on outcomes for health professionals, patients and carers, and health services, including harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to January 2010), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to January 2010), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1967 to January 2010), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1982 to February 2010),and ERIC (CSA) (1965 to January 2010). We searched grey literature: theses/dissertation repositories, trials registers and Google Scholar (searched July 2010). We used additional search methods: examining reference lists and contacting authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies of interventions that use email for scheduling health appointments, for reminders for a scheduled health appointment or for ongoing coordination of health appointments and that took the form of 1) unsecured email 2) secure email or 3) web messaging. All healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers in all settings were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of retrieved citations. No studies were identified for inclusion. Consequently, no data collection or analysis was possible.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria, therefore there are no results to report on the use of email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No conclusions on the effects of using email for the coordination of healthcare appointments and attendance reminders could be made and thus no recommendations for practice can be stipulated. Given the significant theoretical opportunities that email presents, there is a need for rigorous studies addressing the review question, but this may involve addressing barriers concerning trial development and implementation.

Email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients

BACKGROUND

As medical care becomes more complex and the ability to test for conditions grows, pressure on healthcare providers to convey increasing volumes of test results to patients is driving investigation of alternative technological solutions for their delivery. This review addresses the use of email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of using email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients, compared to SMS/ text messaging, telephone communication or usual care, on outcomes, including harms, for health professionals, patients and caregivers, and health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2010), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to January 2010), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to January 2010), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1967 to January 2010), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1982 to February 2010), and ERIC (CSA) (1965 to January 2010). We searched grey literature: theses/dissertation repositories, trials registers and Google Scholar (searched July 2010). We used additional search methods: examining reference lists and contacting authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies of interventions using email for communicating results of any diagnostic medical investigations to patients, and taking the form of 1) unsecured email 2) secure email or 3) web messaging. All healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers in all settings were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of retrieved citations. No studies were identified for inclusion. Consequently, no data collection or analysis was possible.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies met the inclusion criteria, therefore there are no results to report on the use of email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of included studies, we can draw no conclusions on the effects of using email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients, and thus no recommendations for practice can be stipulated. Further well-designed research should be conducted to inform practice and policy for communicating patient results via email, as this is a developing area.

Online communication between doctors and patients in Europe: status and perspectives

Background

Use of the Internet for health purposes is steadily increasing in Europe, while the eHealth market is still a niche. Online communication between doctor and patient is one aspect of eHealth with potentially great impact on the use of health systems, patient-doctor roles and relations and individuals’ health. Monitoring and understanding practices, trends, and expectations in this area is important, as it may bring invaluable knowledge to all stakeholders, in the Health 2.0 era.

Objective

Our two main goals were: (1) to investigate use of the Internet and changes in expectations about future use for particular aspects of communication with a known doctor (obtaining a prescription, scheduling an appointment, or asking a particular health question), and (2) to investigate how important the provision of email and Web services to communicate with the physician is when choosing a new doctor for a first time face-to-face appointment. The data come from the second survey of the eHealth Trends study, which addressed trends and perspectives of health-related Internet use in Europe. This study builds on previous work that established levels of generic use of the Internet for self-help activities, ordering medicine or other health products, interacting with a Web doctor/unknown health professional, and communicating with a family doctor or other known health professional.

Methods

A representative sample of citizens from seven European countries was surveyed (n = 7022) in April and May of 2007 through computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). Respondents were questioned about their use of the Internet to obtain a prescription, schedule an appointment, or ask a health professional about a particular health question. They were also asked what their expectations were regarding future use of the Internet for health-related matters. In a more pragmatic approach to the subject, they were asked about the perceived importance when choosing a new doctor of the possibility of using email and the Web to communicate with that physician. Logistic regression analysis was used to draw the profiles of users of related eHealth services in Europe among the population in general and in the subgroup of those who use the Internet for health-related matters. Changes from 2005 to 2007 were computed using data from the first eHealth Trends survey (October and November 2005, n = 7934).

Results

In 2007, an estimated 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 - 2.1) of the population in these countries had used the Internet to request or renew a prescription; 3.2% (95% CI 2.8 - 3.6) had used the Internet to schedule an appointment; and 2.5% (95% CI 2.2 - 2.9) had used the Internet to ask a particular health question. This represents estimated increases of 0.9% (95% CI 0.5 - 1.3), 1.7% (95% CI 1.2 - 2.2), and 1.4% (95% CI 0.9 - 1.8). An estimated 18.0% (95% CI 17.1 - 18.9) of the populations of these countries expected that in the near future they would have consultations with health professionals online, and 25.4% (95% CI 24.4 - 26.3) expected that in the near future they would be able to schedule an appointment online. Among those using the Internet for health-related purposes, on average more than 4 in 10 people considered the provision of these eHealth services to be important when choosing a new doctor.

Conclusions

Use of the Internet to communicate with a known health professional is still rare in Europe. Legal context, health policy issues, and technical conditions prevailing in different countries might be playing a major role in the situation. Interest in associated eHealth services is high among citizens and likely to increase.

The impact of patient-physician web messaging on healthcare service provision

BACKGROUND

Information technology can support the delivery of healthcare. Patients are eager to make use of such tools as web messaging, yet its deployment has been limited to date. A fear still pervades that the cost associated with a possible increase to physician workloads may outweigh any suggested benefits.

GOAL

This paper aims to review the body of research completed in the area of patient-physician web messaging. The findings of this review will then be assessed and synthesised, with the intention of creating an overview of both the benefits and costs of patient-physician online messaging. Areas of particular importance to future research may then be identified.

RESULTS

Demand and support for online communication tools amongst patients is strong, and can increase quality of care due to increased patient-physician communication. Although there would seem to be great potential to increase process efficiency, there would not seem to be sufficient evidence as of yet to suggest that this is the case.

CONCLUSION

Further quantitative research in particular is required to assess the impact of online communication, with special regard to the effect on overall patient demand and on healthcare process efficiency.