Huisarts loopt nog niet warm voor e-consult

Huisartsen verwachten door het gebruik van elektronische consultatie een toename van de werkdruk en slechtere zorg. Ook vinden zij dat e-consult onvoldoende wordt gehonoreer

AYAs' online information and ehealth needs:A comparison with healthcare professionals' perceptions

Background Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer fulfill their cancer-related information needs often via the Internet. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) have a crucial role in guiding patients in finding appropriate online information and eHealth sources, a role that is often overlooked. Misperceptions of AYAs' needs by HCPs may lead to suboptimal guidance. We aimed to examine the extent to which AYAs' online information and eHealth needs corresponded with HCPs' perceptions of these needs. Methods Two cross-sectional online surveys (AYAs, n = 299; HCP, n = 80) on online information and eHealth needs were conducted. HCPs provided indications of their perceptions of AYA's needs. Results AYAs reported significantly more online information needs compared with HCPs' perceptions regarding: survival rates (AYA = 69%, HCP = 35%, p < 0.001), treatment guidelines (AYA = 65%, HCP = 41%, p < 0.001), return of cancer (AYA = 76%, HCP = 59%, p = 0.004), “what can I do myself” (AYA = 68%, HCP = 54%, p = 0.029), and metastases (AYA = 64%, HCP = 50%, p = 0.040). Significantly more unmet eHealth needs were reported by AYAs compared with HCPs relating to access to own test results (AYA = 25, HCP = 0%, p < 0.001), request tests (AYA = 30%, HCP = 7%, p < 0.001), medical information (AYA = 22%, HCP = 0%, p = 0.001), e-consult with nurses (AYA = 30%, HCP = 10%, p < 0.001), e-consult with physicians (AYA = 38%, HCP = 13%, p = 0.001), and request prescriptions (AYA = 33%, HCP = 21%, p = 0.009). Conclusion AYAs' online information and eHealth needs are partially discrepant with the impression HCPs have, which could result in insufficient guidance related to AYAs' needs. AYAs and HCPs should get guidance regarding where to find optimal information in a language they understand. This may contribute to AYAs' access, understanding, and satisfaction regarding online information and eHealth

Evaluating diverse electronic consultation programs with a common framework.

BackgroundElectronic consultation is an emerging mode of specialty care delivery that allows primary care providers and their patients to obtain specialist expertise without an in-person visit. While studies of individual programs have demonstrated benefits related to timely access to specialty care, electronic consultation programs have not achieved widespread use in the United States. The lack of common evaluation metrics across health systems and concerns related to the generalizability of existing evaluation efforts may be hampering further growth. We sought to identify gaps in knowledge related to the implementation of electronic consultation programs and develop a set of shared evaluation measures to promote further diffusion.MethodsUsing a case study approach, we apply the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) and the Quadruple Aim frameworks of evaluation to examine electronic consultation implementation across diverse delivery systems. Data are from 4 early adopter healthcare delivery systems (San Francisco Health Network, Mayo Clinic, Veterans Administration, Champlain Local Health Integration Network) that represent varied organizational structures, care for different patient populations, and have well-established multi-specialty electronic consultation programs. Data sources include published and unpublished quantitative data from each electronic consultation database and qualitative data from systems' end-users.ResultsOrganizational drivers of electronic consultation implementation were similar across the systems (challenges with timely and/or efficient access to specialty care), though unique system-level facilitators and barriers influenced reach, adoption and design. Effectiveness of implementation was consistent, with improved patient access to timely, perceived high-quality specialty expertise with few negative consequences, garnering high satisfaction among end-users. Data about patient-specific clinical outcomes are lacking, as are policies that provide guidance on the legal implications of electronic consultation and ideal remuneration strategies.ConclusionA core set of effectiveness and implementation metrics rooted in the Quadruple Aim may promote data-driven improvements and further diffusion of successful electronic consultation programs

The impact of inter-clinician electronic consultation in patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation in primary care

Background An early diagnosis and early initiation of oral anticoagulants (OAC) are main determinants for outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Inter-clinician electronic consultations (e-consultations) program for the general practitioner referrals to cardiologist may improve health care access by reducing the elapsed time for cardiology care. Objective To evaluate the effect of a reduced elapsed time to care after a inter-clinician e-consultations program implementation (2013–2019) in comparison with previous in-person consultation (2010–2012) in the outpatient health care management in a Cardiology Department. Methodology We included 10,488 patients with AF from 1 January 2010, to 31 December 2019. Until 2012, all patients attended an in-person consultation (2010–2012). In 2013, we instituted an e-consult program (2013–2019) for all primary care referrals to cardiologists that preceded patient's in-person consultation when considered. The shared electronic patient dossier (EPD) was available between GP and cardiologist, and any change in therapy advice from cardiologist was directly implemented in this EPD. Results During the e-consultation period (2013–2019) were referred 6627 patients by GPs to cardiology versus 3861 during the in-person consultation (2010–2012). The e-consultation implementation was associated with a reduction in the elapsed time to anticoagulation prescription (177.6 ± 8.9 vs. 22.5 ± 8.1 days, p < .001), and an increase of OAC use (61% [95% IC: 19.6%–102.4%], p < .001). The e-consult program implementation was associated with a reduction in the 1-year CV mortality (.48 [95% CI: .30–.75]) and all-cause mortality (.42 [95% CI: .29–.62]). The OAC reduces the stroke mortality (.15 [95% CI: .06–.39]) and CV mortality (.43 [95% CI: .29–.62]) and all-cause mortality (.23 [95% CI: .17–.31]). Conclusion A shared EPD-based inter-clinician e-consultation program significantly reduced the elapsed time for cardiology consultation and initiation of OAC. The implementation of this program was associated with a lower risk of stroke and cardiovascular/all-cause mortalityS

The interactive web-based program MSmonitor for self-management and multidisciplinary care in multiple sclerosis:utilization and valuation by patients

Background: MSmonitor is an interactive web-based program for self-management and integrated, multidisciplinary care in multiple sclerosis. Methods: To assess the utilization and valuation by persons with multiple sclerosis, we held an online survey among those who had used the program for at least 1 year. We evaluated the utilization and meaningfulness of the program's elements, perceived use of data by neurologists and nurses, and appreciation of care, self-management, and satisfaction. Results: Fifty-five persons completed the questionnaire (estimated response rate 40%). The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Profile (MSIP), Medication and Adherence Inventory, Activities Diary, and electronic consultation (e-consult) were used by 40%, 55%, 47%, and 44% of respondents and were considered meaningful by 83%, 81%, 54%, and 88%, respectively. During out-patient consultations, nurses reportedly used the MSmonitor data three to six times more frequently than neurologists. As to nursing care, more symptoms were dealt with (according to 54% of respondents), symptoms were better discussed (69%), and the overall quality of care had improved (60%) since the use of the program. As to neurological care, these figures were 24%, 31%, and 27%, respectively. In 46% of the respondents, the insight into their symptoms and disabilities had increased since the use of the program; the MSIP, Activities Diary, and e-consult had contributed most to this improvement. The overall satisfaction with the program was 3.5 out of 5, and 73% of the respondents would recommend the program to other persons with multiple sclerosis. Conclusion: A survey among persons with multiple sclerosis using the MSmonitor program showed that the MSIP, Medication and Adherence Inventory, Activities Diary, and e-consult were frequently used and that the MSIP, Medication and Adherence Inventory, and e-consult were appreciated the most. Moreover, the quality of nursing care, but not so neurological care, had improved, which may relate to nurses making more frequent use of the MSmonitor data than neurologists

Email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals

Email is one of the most widely used methods of communication, but its use in healthcare is still uncommon. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included clinical communication between healthcare professionals, but the effects of using email in this way are not well known. We updated a 2012 review of the use of email for two-way clinical communication between healthcare professionals

Email for communicating results of diagnostic medical investigations to patients

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt

Email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals

Background Email is a popular and commonly-used method of communication, but its use in healthcare is not routine. Where email communication has been utilised in health care, its purposes have included use for clinical communication between healthcare professionals, but the effects of using email in this way are not known. This review assesses the use of email for two-way clinical communication between healthcare professionals. Objectives To assess the effects of healthcare professionals using email to communicate clinical information, on healthcare professional outcomes, patient outcomes, health service performance, and service efficiency and acceptability, when compared to other forms of communicating clinical information. 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 (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 in which healthcare professionals used email for communicating clinical information, 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 authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies' risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We report all measures as per the study report. Main results We included one randomised controlled trial involving 327 patients and 159 healthcare providers at baseline. It compared an email to physicians containing patient-specific osteoporosis risk information and guidelines for evaluation and treatment with usual care (no email). This study was at high risk of bias for the allocation concealment and blinding domains. The email reminder changed health professional actions significantly, with professionals more likely to provide guideline-recommended osteoporosis treatment (bone density measurement and/or osteoporosis medication) when compared with usual care. The evidence for its impact on patient behaviours/actions was inconclusive. One measure found that the electronic medical reminder message impacted patient behaviour positively: patients had a higher calcium intake, and two found no difference between the two groups. The study did not assess primary health service outcomes or harms. Authors' conclusions As only one study was identified for inclusion, the results are inadequate to inform clinical practice in regard to the use of email for clinical communication between healthcare professionals. 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, and costs