Electronic consultations (E-consults) and their outcomes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: Electronic consultations (e-consults) are clinician-to-clinician communications that may obviate face-to-face specialist visits. E-consult programs have spread within the US and internationally despite limited data on outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the recent peer-reviewed literature on the effect of e-consults on access, cost, quality, and patient and clinician experience and identified the gaps in existing research on these outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched 4 databases for empirical studies published between 1/1/2015 and 2/28/2019 that reported on one or more outcomes of interest. Two investigators reviewed titles and abstracts. One investigator abstracted information from each relevant article, and another confirmed the abstraction. We applied the GRADE criteria for the strength of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: We found only modest empirical evidence for effectiveness of e-consults on important outcomes. Most studies are observational and within a single health care system, and comprehensive assessments are lacking. For those outcomes that have been reported, findings are generally positive, with mixed results for clinician experience. These findings reassure but also raise concern for publication bias. CONCLUSION: Despite stakeholder enthusiasm and encouraging results in the literature to date, more rigorous study designs applied across all outcomes are needed. Policy makers need to know what benefits may be expected in what contexts, so they can define appropriate measures of success and determine how to achieve them. Informatics Association 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US

Electronic consultations and economies of scale: a qualitative study of clinician perspectives on scaling up e-consult delivery

OBJECTIVE: To explore Veterans Health Administration clinicians\u27 perspectives on the idea of redesigning electronic consultation (e-consult) delivery in line with a hub-and-spoke (centralized) model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study in VA New England Healthcare System (VISN 1). Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 35 primary care providers and 38 specialty care providers, including 13 clinical leaders, at 6 VISN 1 sites varying in size, specialist availability, and e-consult volume. Interviews included exploration of the hub-and-spoke (centralized) e-consult model as a system redesign option. Qualitative content analysis procedures were applied to identify and describe salient categories. RESULTS: Participants saw several potential benefits to scaling up e-consult delivery from a decentralized model to a hub-and-spoke model, including expanded access to specialist expertise and increased timeliness of e-consult responses. Concerns included differences in resource availability and management styles between sites, anticipated disruption to working relationships, lack of incentives for central e-consultants, dedicated staff\u27s burnout and fatigue, technological challenges, and lack of motivation for change. DISCUSSION: Based on a case study from one of the largest integrated healthcare systems in the United States, our work identifies novel concerns and offers insights for healthcare organizations contemplating a scale-up of their e-consult systems. CONCLUSIONS: Scaling up e-consults in line with the hub-and-spoke model may help pave the way for a centralized and efficient approach to care delivery, but the success of this transformation will depend on healthcare systems\u27 ability to evaluate and address barriers to leveraging economies of scale for e-consults. Informatics Association 2021. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US

Implications of Electronic Consultations for Clinician Communication and Relationships: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND: Strong relationships and effective communication between clinicians support care coordination and contribute to care quality. As a new mechanism of clinician communication, electronic consultations (e-consults) may have downstream effects on care provision and coordination. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand primary care providers\u27 and specialists\u27 perspectives on how e-consults affect communication and relationships between clinicians. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative study using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews. SUBJECTS: Six of 8 sites in the VISN 1 (Veterans Integrated Service Network) in New England were chosen, based on variation in organization and received e-consult volume. Seventy-three respondents, including 60 clinicians in primary care and 3 high-volume specialties (cardiology, pulmonology, and neurology) and 13 clinical leaders at the site and VISN level, were recruited. MEASURES: Participants\u27 perspectives on the role and impact of e-consults on communication and relationships between clinicians. RESULTS: Clinicians identified 3 types of e-consults\u27 social affordances: (1) e-consults were praised for allowing specialist advice to be more grounded in patient data and well-documented, but concerns about potential legal liability and increased transparency of communication to patients and others were also noted; (2) e-consults were perceived as an imperfect modality for iterative communication, especially for complex conversations requiring shared deliberation; (3) e-consults were understood as a factor influencing clinician relationships, but clinicians disagreed on whether e-consults promote or undermine relationship building. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians have diverse concerns about the implications of e-consults for communication and relationships. Our findings may inform efforts to expand and improve the use of e-consults in diverse health care settings

Results of propensity-score-based analyses of the effect of antibiotic regimen on secondary outcome incidence.

<p>Results of propensity-score-based analyses of the effect of antibiotic regimen on secondary outcome incidence.</p

Risk of surgical site infection, acute kidney injury, and <i>Clostridium difficile</i> infection following antibiotic prophylaxis with vancomycin plus a beta-lactam versus either drug alone: A national propensity-score-adjusted retrospective cohort study

<div><p>Background</p><p>The optimal regimen for perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis is controversial. Use of combination prophylaxis with a beta-lactam plus vancomycin is increasing; however, the relative risks and benefits associated with this strategy are unknown. Thus, we sought to compare postoperative outcomes following administration of 2 antimicrobials versus a single agent for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs). Potential harms associated with combination regimens, including acute kidney injury (AKI) and <i>Clostridium difficile</i> infection (CDI), were also considered.</p><p>Methods and findings</p><p>Using a multicenter, national Veterans Affairs (VA) cohort, all patients who underwent cardiac, orthopedic joint replacement, vascular, colorectal, and hysterectomy procedures during the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2013 and who received planned manual review of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis regimen and manual review for the 30-day incidence of SSI were included. Using a propensity-adjusted log-binomial regression model stratified by type of surgical procedure, the association between receipt of 2 antimicrobials (vancomycin plus a beta-lactam) versus either single agent alone (vancomycin or a beta-lactam) and SSI was evaluated. Measures of association were adjusted for age, diabetes, smoking, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) status, and receipt of mupirocin. The 7-day incidence of postoperative AKI and 90-day incidence of CDI were also measured. In all, 70,101 procedures (52,504 beta-lactam only, 5,089 vancomycin only, and 12,508 combination) with 2,466 (3.5%) SSIs from 109 medical centers were included. Among cardiac surgery patients, combination prophylaxis was associated with a lower incidence of SSI (66/6,953, 0.95%) than single-agent prophylaxis (190/12,834, 1.48%; crude risk ratio [RR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.49, 0.85; adjusted RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46, 0.83). After adjusting for SSI risk, no association between receipt of combination prophylaxis and SSI was found for the other types of surgeries evaluated, including orthopedic joint replacement procedures. In MRSA-colonized patients undergoing cardiac surgery, SSI occurred in 8/346 (2.3%) patients who received combination prophylaxis versus 4/100 (4.0%) patients who received vancomycin alone (crude RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.18, 1.88). Among MRSA-negative and -unknown cardiac surgery patients, SSIs occurred in 58/6,607 (0.9%) patients receiving combination prophylaxis versus 146/10,215 (1.4%) patients who received a beta-lactam alone (crude RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45, 0.83). Based on these associations, the number needed to treat to prevent 1 SSI in MRSA-colonized patients is estimated to be 53, compared to 176 in non-MRSA patients. CDI incidence was similar in both exposure groups. Across all types of surgical procedures, risk of AKI was increased in the combination antimicrobial prophylaxis group (2,971/12,508 [23.8%] receiving combination versus 1,058/5,089 [20.8%] receiving vancomycin alone versus 7,314/52,504 [13.9%] receiving beta-lactam alone). We found a significant association between absolute risk of AKI and receipt of combination regimens across all types of procedures. If the observed association is causal, the number needed to harm for severe AKI following cardiac surgery would be 167. The major limitation of our investigation is that it is an observational study in a predominantly male population, which may limit generalizability and lead to unmeasured confounding.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>There are benefits but also unintended consequences of antimicrobial and infection prevention strategies aimed at “getting to zero” healthcare-associated infections. In our study, combination prophylaxis was associated with both benefits (reduction in SSIs following cardiac surgical procedures) and harms (increase in postoperative AKI). In cardiac surgery patients, the difference in risk–benefit profile by MRSA status suggests that MRSA-screening-directed prophylaxis may optimize benefits while minimizing harms in this selected population. More information about long-term outcomes and patient and societal preferences regarding risk of SSI versus risk of AKI is needed to improve clinical decision-making.</p></div

Creation of cohort: Eligible surgeries and distribution by surgical prophylaxis regimen.

<p>BL, beta lactam; SSI, surgical site infection; V, vancomycin; VASQIP, Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program.</p

Variable distributions among all VASQIP-assessed surgeries.

<p>Variable distributions among all VASQIP-assessed surgeries.</p

Results of propensity-score-based analyses of the effect of antibiotic regimen on 30-day surgical site infection incidence.

<p>Results of propensity-score-based analyses of the effect of antibiotic regimen on 30-day surgical site infection incidence.</p