Evaluating the Implementation of The Champlain BASE™ eConsult Service in a New Region of Ontario, Canada: A Cross-Sectional Study

Classification system for primary care provider eConsults about medications for older adults with frailty

BACKGROUND

Providing primary care for people with frailty can be challenging due to an increased risk of adverse outcomes and use of potentially inappropriate medications which may exacerbate characteristics of frailty. eConsult is a service where primary care providers can receive timely specialist advice for their patients through a secure web-based application. We aimed to develop a classification system to characterize medication-focused eConsult questions for older adults with frailty and assess its usability.

METHODS

A classification system was developed and refined over three cycles of improvement through a cross-sectional study of 35 cases categorized as medication-focused from cases submitted in 2019 for patients aged 65 or older with frailty through the Champlain BASE eConsult service (Ontario, Canada). The final classification system was then applied to each case.

RESULTS

The classification system contains 5 sections: (1) case descriptives; (2) intent and type of question; (3) medication recommendations and additional information in the response; (4) medication classification; and (5) potentially inappropriate medications. Among the 35 medication-focused cases, the most common specialties consulted were endocrinology (9 cases, 26%) and cardiology (5 cases, 14%). Medication histories were available for 29 cases (83%). Many patients were prescribed potentially inappropriate medications based on explicit tools (AGS Beers Criteria®, STOPPFall, Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale, ThinkCascades) yet few consults inquired about these medications.

CONCLUSION

A classification system to describe medication-related eConsult cases for patients experiencing frailty was developed and applied to 35 eConsult cases. It can be applied to more cases to identify professional development opportunities and enhancements for eConsult services.

Patient and Healthcare Provider Perspectives on the Implementation of a Web-Based Clinical Communication System for Cancer: A Qualitative Study

Previous research has identified communication and care coordination problems for patients with cancer. Healthcare providers (HCPs) have reported communication issues due to the incompatibility of electronic medical records (EMR) software and not being consistently copied on patient reports. We evaluated an asynchronous web-based communication system ("eOncoNote") for primary care providers and cancer specialists to improve cancer care coordination. The objectives were to examine patients' perceptions of the role of eOncoNote in their healthcare, and HCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote. Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients with breast and prostate cancer, primary care providers, and cancer specialists. Eighteen patients and fourteen HCPs participated. Six themes were identified from the patient interviews focusing on HCP and patient roles related to care coordination and patient awareness of communication among their HCPs. Four themes were identified from HCP interviews related to the context of care coordination and experience with eOncoNote. Both patients and HCPs described the important role patients and caregivers play in care coordination. The results show that patients were often unaware of the communication between their HCPs and assumed they were communicating. HCPs encountered challenges incorporating eOncoNote into their workflow.

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.

Electronic consultation in correctional facilities worldwide: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of the use of and evidence for eConsult in correctional facilities worldwide.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Three academic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) were searched to identify papers published between 1990 and 2020 that presented data on eConsult use in correctional facilities. The grey literature was also searched for any resources that discussed eConsult use in correctional facilities. Articles and resources were excluded if they discussed synchronous, patient-to-provider or unsecure communication. The reference lists of included articles were also hand searched.

RESULTS

Of the 226 records retrieved from the academic literature search and 595 from the grey literature search, 22 were included in the review. Most study populations included adult male offenders in a variety of correctional environments. These resources identified 13 unique eConsult services in six countries. Six of these services involved multiple medical specialties, while the remaining services were single specialty. The available evidence was organised into five identified themes: feasibility, cost-effectiveness, access to care, provider satisfaction and clinical impact.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified evidence that the use of eConsult in correctional facilities is beneficial and avoids unnecessary transportation of offenders outside of the facilities. It is feasible, cost-effective, increases access to care, has an impact on clinical care and has high provider satisfaction. Some gaps in the literature remain, and we suggest further research on patient satisfaction, enablers and barriers to implementation, and women, youth and transgender populations in this setting to inform service providers and stakeholders. Despite some gaps, eConsult is evidently an important tool to provide timely, high-quality care to offenders.

The Provincial Spread and Scale of the Ontario eConsult Service: Evaluation of the First 2 Years

This paper reports on a multimethod cross-sectional study of the Ontario electronic consultation (eConsult) service. Utilization and closeout survey data from July 2018 through June 2020 were analyzed using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Requesting clinicians submitted 60,474 eConsults, and monthly cases increased from 1,487 in July 2018 to 4,179 in June 2020. The median specialist response time was 1 day. An originally contemplated referral was avoided in 51% of cases. Ontario eConsult showed successful uptake across Ontario, demonstrating continued spread and scale, and offering a template for trailblazers looking to implement digital health innovations in their own jurisdictions.

Evaluation of an Electronic Consultation Service for COVID-19 Care

PURPOSE

COVID-19 has increased the need for innovative virtual care solutions. Electronic consultation (eConsult) services allow primary care practitioners to pose clinical questions to specialists using a secure remote application. We examined eConsult cases submitted to a COVID-19 specialist group in order to assess usage patterns, impact on response times and referrals, and the content of clinical questions being asked.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods analysis of eConsult cases submitted between March and September 2020 in Ontario, Canada to 2 services. We performed a descriptive analysis of the average response time and the total time spent by the specialist for eConsults. Primary care practitioners completed a post-eConsult questionnaire that asked about the outcome of the eConsult. We performed an inductive and deductive content analysis of a subset of cases to identify common themes among the clinical questions asked.

RESULTS

A total of 208 primary care practitioners submitted 289 eConsult cases. The median specialist response time was 0.6 days (range = 3 minutes to 15 days); the average time spent by specialists per case was 16 minutes (range = 5 to 59 minutes). In 69 cases (24%), the eConsult enabled avoidance of a face-to-face referral. Content analysis of 51 cases identified 5 major themes: precautions for high-risk and special populations, diagnostic clarification and/or need for COVID-19 testing, guidance on self-isolation and return to work, guidance on personal protective equipment, and management of chronic symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the considerable potential of eConsults during a pandemic as our service was quickly implemented across Ontario and resulted in primary care practitioners' rapid and low-barrier access to specialist input.

Evaluation of an electronic consultation service for transgender care

BACKGROUND

Access to transgender care in Canada is poor. Although primary care providers are ideally positioned to initiate care, many feel uncomfortable providing transgender care. This study aimed to explore the impact of an electronic consultation (eConsult) service between primary care providers and transgender care specialists on access to care and to explore the content of clinical questions that were asked.

METHODS

This was a retrospective mixed methods analysis of 62 eConsults submitted between January 2017 and December 2018 by primary care providers to specialists in transgender care in a health region in eastern Ontario, Canada. A descriptive analysis was conducted to assess the average response time and the total time spent by the specialist for the eConsults. An inductive and deductive content analysis was carried out to identify common themes of clinical questions being asked to transgender specialists. A post-eConsult survey completed by primary care providers was assessed to gain insight into avoided face-to-face referrals and overall provider satisfaction.

RESULTS

The median specialist response time was 1.2 days (range: 1 h to 5 days) and the average time spent by specialists per eConsult was 18 min (range: 10 to 40 min). The qualitative analysis identified six major themes: 1) interpretation/management of abnormal bloodwork, 2) change in management due to lack of desired effect/hormone levels not a target, 3) initiation of hormone therapy/initial work up, 4) management of adverse effects of hormone therapy, 5) transition related surgery counseling and post-op complications, and 6) management of patients with comorbidities. Approximately one-third of eConsults resulted in an avoided face-to-face referral and 95% of primary care providers rated the value of their eConsult as a 5 (excellent value) or 4.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that a transgender eConsult service has potential to significantly improve access to care for transgender patients. Given the importance that timely access has on improving mental health and reducing suicide attempts, eConsult has the potential to make a substantial clinical impact on this population. Identified themes of eConsult questions provides insight into potential gaps in knowledge amongst primary care providers that could help inform future continuing education events.

Determining if Telehealth Can Reduce Health System Costs: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Telehealth represents an opportunity for Australia to harness the power of technology to redesign the way health care is delivered. The potential benefits of telehealth include increased accessibility to care, productivity gains for health providers and patients through reduced travel, potential for cost savings, and an opportunity to develop culturally appropriate services that are more sensitive to the needs of special populations. The uptake of telehealth has been hindered at times by clinician reluctance and policies that preclude metropolitan populations from accessing telehealth services.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate if telehealth reduces health system costs compared with traditional service models and to identify the scenarios in which cost savings can be realized.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken to meet the study aims. Initially, literature searches were conducted using broad terms for telehealth and economics to identify economic evaluation literature in telehealth. The investigators then conducted an expert focus group to identify domains where telehealth could reduce health system costs, followed by targeted literature searches for corresponding evidence.

RESULTS

The cost analyses reviewed provided evidence that telehealth reduced costs when health system-funded travel was prevented and when telehealth mitigated the need for expensive procedural or specialist follow-up by providing competent care in a more efficient way. The expert focus group identified 4 areas of potential savings from telehealth: productivity gains, reductions in secondary care, alternate funding models, and telementoring. Telehealth demonstrated great potential for productivity gains arising from health system redesign; however, under the Australian activity-based funding, it is unlikely that these gains will result in cost savings. Secondary care use mitigation is an area of promise for telehealth; however, many studies have not demonstrated overall cost savings due to the cost of administering and monitoring telehealth systems. Alternate funding models from telehealth systems have the potential to save the health system money in situations where the consumers pay out of pocket to receive services. Telementoring has had minimal economic evaluation; however, in the long term it is likely to result in inadvertent cost savings through the upskilling of generalist and allied health clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Health services considering implementing telehealth should be motivated by benefits other than cost reduction. The available evidence has indicated that although telehealth provides overwhelmingly positive patient benefits and increases productivity for many services, current evidence suggests that it does not routinely reduce the cost of care delivery for the health system.

Barriers and facilitators for implementation of electronic consultations (eConsult) to enhance access to specialist care: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Electronic consultation (eConsult)-provider-to-provider electronic asynchronous exchanges of patient health information at a distance-is emerging as a potential tool to improve the interface between primary care providers and specialists. Despite growing evidence that eConsult has clinical benefits, it is not widely adopted. We investigated factors influencing the adoption and implementation of eConsult services.

METHODS

We applied established methods to guide the review, and the recently published Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews to report our findings. We searched five electronic databases and the grey literature for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles and full texts to identify studies that reported barriers to and/or facilitators of eConsult (asynchronous (store-and-forward) use of telemedicine to exchange patient health information between two providers (primary and secondary) at a distance using secure infrastructure). We extracted data on study characteristics and key barriers and facilitators were analysed thematically and classified using the Quadruple Aim framework taxonomy. No date or language restrictions were applied.

RESULTS

Among the 2579 publications retrieved, 130 studies met eligibility for the review. We identified and summarised key barriers to and facilitators of eConsult adoption and implementation across four domains: provider, patient, healthcare system and cost. Key barriers were increased workload for providers, privacy concerns and insufficient reimbursement for providers. Main facilitators were remote residence location, timely responses from specialists, utilisation of referral coordinators, addressing medicolegal concerns and incentives for providers to use eConsult.

CONCLUSION

There are multiple barriers to and facilitators of eConsult adoption across the domains of Quadruple Aim framework. Our findings will inform the development of practice tools to support the wider adoption and scalability of eConsult implementation.

Supporting the spread and scale-up of electronic consultation across Canada: cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the process of implementing an electronic consultation (eConsult) service and evaluate its impact along key metrics outlined by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Clinics using eConsult in four provinces across Canada: Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

PARTICIPANTS

All eConsult cases submitted in four participating provinces were included.

INTERVENTION

The eConsult service is a secure online application that allows primary care providers and specialists to communicate regarding a patient's care. We measured the impact using system utilisation data and mandatory close-out surveys completed at the end of each eConsult.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Implementation progress and impact were examined using the five categories outlined by the RE-AIM framework: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance.

RESULTS

Four provinces provided data from different periods, ranging from 4 years (Alberta) to 10 months (Manitoba). Total cases completed ranged from 96 (Manitoba) to 6885 (Alberta). Newfoundland had the largest menu of available specialties (n=35), while Alberta and Quebec had the smallest (n=22). The most frequently requested groups varied across provinces, with only endocrinology appearing in the top five for all provinces. The average specialist response time ranged from 3 days (Manitoba) to 16.7 days (Alberta). Between 54% (Newfoundland) and 66% (Manitoba) of cases resulted in new or additional information. Primary care providers avoided completing referrals they had originally considered in 36% (Newfoundland) to 53% of cases (Manitoba), while only between 27 % (Quebec) and 29% (Newfoundland) of cases resulted in a referral. In every province, services demonstrated higher rates of usage in their last quarter of data than their first.

CONCLUSIONS

eConsult was successfully implemented in four new provinces across Canada. Implementation strategies and scope varied, but services demonstrated substantial consistency on several key metrics, most notably on whether new information was learnt and impact on decision to refer.