What do primary care providers want to know when caring for patients living with frailty? An analysis of eConsult communications between primary care providers and specialists.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a complex condition that primary care providers (PCPs) are managing in increasing numbers, yet there is no clear guidance or training for frailty care. OBJECTIVES: The present study examined eConsult questions PCPs asked specialists about patients with frailty, the specialists' responses, and the impact of eConsult on the care of these patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: ChamplainBASE™ eConsult located in Eastern Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty one eConsult cases closed by PCPs in 2019 that use the terms "frail" or "frailty" to describe patients 65 years of age or older. MEASUREMENTS: The Taxonomy of Generic Clinical Questions (TGCQ) was used to classify PCP questions and the International Classification for Primary Care 3 (ICPC-3) was used to classify the clinical content of each eConsult. The impact of eConsult on patient care was measured by PCP responses to a mandatory survey. RESULTS: PCPs most frequently directed their questions to cardiology (n = 7; 11%), gastroenterology (n = 7; 11%), and endocrinology (n = 6; 10%). Specialist answers most often pertained to medications (n = 63, 46%), recommendations for clinical investigation (n = 24, 17%), and diagnoses (n = 22, 16%). Specialist responses resulted in PCPs avoiding referral in 57% (n = 35) of cases whereas referrals were still required in 15% (n = 9) of cases. Specialists responded to eConsults in a median 1.11 days (IQR = 0.3-4.7), and 95% (n = 58) of cases received a response within 7 days. Specialists recorded a median of 15 min to respond (IQR = 10-20), with a median cost of $50.00 CAD (IQR = 33.33 - 66.66) per eConsult. CONCLUSIONS: Through the analysis of questions and responses submitted to eConsult, this study provides novel information on PCP knowledge gaps and approaches to care for patients living with frailty. Furthermore, these analyses provide evidence that eConsult is a feasible and valuable tool for improving care for patients with frailty in primary care settings.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Identification and Management of Frailty: A Scoping Review Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid population ageing and associated health issues such as frailty are a growing public health concern. While early identification and management of frailty may limit adverse health outcomes, the complex presentations of frailty pose challenges for clinicians. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential solution to support the early identification and management of frailty. In order to provide a comprehensive overview of current evidence regarding the development and use of AI technologies including machine learning and deep learning for the identification and management of frailty, this protocol outlines a scoping review aiming to identify and present available information in this area. Specifically, this protocol describes a review that will focus on the clinical tools and frameworks used to assess frailty, the outcomes that have been evaluated and the involvement of knowledge users in the development, implementation and evaluation of AI methods and tools for frailty care in clinical settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review protocol details a systematic search of eight major academic databases, including Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Ageline, Web of Science, Scopus and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore using the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The search strategy has been designed in consultation with a librarian. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, followed by full texts, for eligibility and then chart the data using a piloted data charting form. Results will be collated and presented through a narrative summary, tables and figures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since this study is based on publicly available information, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be communicated with healthcare providers, caregivers, patients and research and health programme funders through peer-reviewed publications, presentations and an infographic. REGISTRATION DETAILS: OSF Registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/T54G8).

Specialists accessing specialty advice: Evaluating utilization, benefits, and impact of care of an e-consultation service.

INTRODUCTION: The usual referral pathway is from a primary care provider (PCP) to a specialist; however, specialists also refer to and consult with other specialists. Electronic consultation (eConsult) allows clinicians to submit questions on behalf of patients to specialists to receive timely advice. Most eConsult studies in the past have examined questions asked from PCPs to specialists. This study investigates the utilization of specialists submitting clinical questions to other specialists through the Ontario eConsult Service and identifies use-case scenarios where specialist-to-specialist eConsult may be beneficial. METHODS: A retrospective, descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of eConsults submitted by specialists through the Ontario eConsult Service for 24 months (March 2019 to February 2021). Utilization data is collected automatically by the service, including specialty referred to, time billed, region, and results from a closeout survey which includes the referral outcome of the eConsult and the utility to the submitting clinician. RESULTS: 4% (n = 3285) of all eConsults sent within the study period were specialist-to-specialist, with the others being sent by a PCP. The number of specialist-to-specialist eConsults grew 120% following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The top three specialties that submitted eConsults were pediatrics, internal medicine, and endocrinology. The top three specialties that specialists submitted to were dermatology, neurology, and hematology. A face-to-face referral was avoided in 69% of referrals. CONCLUSION: Evaluating the utilization patterns of specialist-to-specialist eConsults allows us to better understand and expand the scope of eConsult services, which have traditionally been thought of as a workflow between a PCP and a specialist.

Improving Access to Osteoporosis Specialists Using Electronic Consultations.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the types of osteoporosis-related questions being asked by primary care providers (PCPs) and describe the impact of the advice provided by osteoporosis specialists using eConsult. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of osteoporosis-related eConsults submitted to endocrinologists between January 2018 and December 2020 on the Champlain eConsult BASE™ Service in Ontario, Canada. Each eConsult was coded according to clinical question and answer type through consensus between 2 authors, based on predetermined taxonomies. We analyzed eConsult utilization data, including response times, PCP satisfaction, and referral outcomes (collected via PCP surveys). RESULTS: Of the 2,528 eConsults sent to endocrinologists during the study period, 408 (16%) were specific to osteoporosis. The most common questions asked by PCPs were regarding whether or not to start treatment (35%), the initial therapy choice (25%), and how often to complete bone mineral density scans (15%). The most common responses from specialists included recommendations for bone mineral density scanning (34%), recommendation to start therapy (24%), and recommendation to treat using a bisphosphonate without the dose specified (23%). The median response interval was 3.1 days. Most cases (84%) were resolved without requiring an in-person referral. Clear advice for a new course of action for PCPs to implement was provided in 54% of cases. CONCLUSION: Osteoporosis eConsults provide timely access to valuable specialist advice while avoiding unnecessary face-to-face clinic visits. We identified commonly recurring osteoporosis questions asked by PCPs, which can be used to inform planning of future continuing professional development events.

Understanding barriers to participation in group chronic disease self-management (CDSM) programs: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence enrollment in and attendance of chronic disease self-management (CDSM) group programs. METHODS: A scoping review of peer-reviewed publications that reported on factors of enrollment or attendance in group CDSM programs for adults with any type of chronic condition. Screening was completed by two reviewers and data extraction was checked for accuracy. Data were summarized and key themes were identified in collaboration with the study team. RESULTS: Following screening, 52 of 2774 articles were included. Attendance rates that varied from 10.4-98.5% (mean =72.5%). There is considerable overlap between enrollment and attendance factors. These included Competing Commitments, Logistics, Personal characteristics, Perception of illness/health status, Health service provision, and Group dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: Varied and individualized factors can facilitate or impede enrollment or attendance in group CDSM programs. Consideration of these factors and tailoring of programs is needed to facilitate patient ability to take part. Participatory co-design is a growing approach to ensure programs meet individual and community needs. More research is needed to identify the specific impact of using codesign on enrollment and attendance in group CDSM programs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Including community members and service users in design and implementation may enhance CDSM program access.

Strategies used throughout the scaling-up process of eConsult - Multiple case study of four Canadian Provinces.

BACKGROUND: eConsult is a model of asynchronous communication connecting primary care providers to specialists to discuss patient care. This study aims to analyze the scaling-up process and identify strategies used to support scaling-up efforts in four provinces in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a multiple case study with four cases (ON, QC, MB, NL). Data collection methods included document review (n = 93), meeting observations (n = 65) and semi-structured interviews (n = 40). Each case was analyzed based on Milat's framework. RESULTS: The first scaling-up phase was marked by the rigorous evaluation of eConsult pilot projects and the publication of over 90 scientific papers. In the second phase, provinces implemented provincial multi-stakeholder committees, institutionalized the evaluation, and produced documents detailing the scaling-up plan. During the third phase, efforts were made to lead proofs of concept, obtain the endorsement of national and provincial organizations, and mobilize alternate sources of funding. The last phase was mainly observed in Ontario, where the creation of a provincial governance structure and strategies were put in place to monitor the service and manage changes. CONCLUSIONS: Various strategies need to be used throughout the scaling-up process. The process remains challenging and lengthy because health systems lack clear processes to support innovation scaling-up.

Utility of eConsults for COVID-19 vaccine-related concerns in Ontario: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Champlain BASE™ and Ontario eConsult services are virtual platforms that serve to facilitate contact between primary care providers and specialists across Ontario, relaying patient-specific questions to relevant specialists via a secure web-based platform. Despite ample evidence regarding the general effectiveness of these platforms, their utility as it pertains to clinical concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccines has not yet been explored. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of COVID-19 vaccine related eConsults on Ontario patients completed by five allergy specialists between February and October of 2021. 4318 COVID-19 vaccine-related eConsults were completed in total during this time; with 1857 completed by the five allergists participating in this analysis. Question types/content were categorized using a taxonomy developed through consensus on a weighted monthly sample of 499 total cases. Data regarding whether external resources were required to answer each eConsult, impact on primary care provider referral decisions, and allergy consultant response times were collected. A 2-question survey was completed by primary care providers following eConsultation and results were collected. RESULTS: 41.08% of eConsults received involved safety concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccine administration in the setting of prior allergic disease and another 36.1% involved a potential reaction the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. 72.1% of eConsults were answered by specialist without needing external resources, and only 9.8% of all eConsults received resulted in a recommendation for formal in-person referral to Clinical Immunology & Allergy specialist or another subspecialty. Average time to complete eConsult was 16.4 min, and 79.7% of PCP eConsult queries which would have traditionally resulted in formal consultation were resolved based on advice provided in the eConsult without need for in-person assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the utility of the eConsult service as it pertains to COVID-19 vaccine-related concerns. The eConsult platform proved an effective tool in diverting the need for in-person assessment by an Allergist or other medical specialty. This is significant given the large volume of eConsults completed by Allergists, and demonstrates the impact of an effective electronic delivery of care model during a time of strained resources and public health efforts directed at mass vaccination.

Using electronic consultation (eConsult) to identify frailty in provider-to-provider communication: a feasibility and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a complex age-related clinical condition that increases vulnerability to stressors. Early recognition of frailty is challenging. While primary care providers (PCPs) serve as the first point of contact for most older adults, convenient tools for identifying frailty in primary care are lacking. Electronic consultation (eConsult), a platform connecting PCPs to specialists, is a rich source of provider-to-provider communication data. Text-based patient descriptions on eConsult may provide opportunities for earlier identification of frailty. We sought to explore the feasibility and validity of identifying frailty status using eConsult data. METHODS: eConsult cases closed in 2019 and submitted on behalf of long-term care (LTC) residents or community-dwelling older adults were sampled. A list of frailty-related terms was compiled through a review of the literature and consultation with experts. To identify frailty, eConsult text was parsed to measure the frequency of frailty-related terms. Feasibility of this approach was assessed by examining the availability of frailty-related terms in eConsult communication logs, and by asking clinicians to indicate whether they can assess likelihood of frailty by reviewing the cases. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the number of frailty-related terms in cases about LTC residents with those about community-dwelling older adults. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing clinicians' ratings of frailty to the frequency of frailty-related terms. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen LTC and 112 community cases were included. Frailty-related terms identified per case averaged 4.55 ± 3.95 in LTC and 1.96 ± 2.68 in the community (p < .001). Clinicians consistently rated cases with ≥ 5 frailty-related terms as highly likely of living with frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of frailty-related terms establishes the feasibility of using provider-to-provider communication on eConsult to identify patients with high likelihood of living with this condition. The higher average of frailty-related terms in LTC (versus community) cases, and agreement between clinician-provided frailty ratings and the frequency of frailty-related terms, support the validity of an eConsult-based approach to identifying frailty. There is potential for eConsult to be used as a case-finding tool in primary care for early recognition and proactive initiation of care processes for older patients living with frailty.

An environmental scan of Ontario Health Teams: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Ontario Health Teams (OHTs) are an integrated care system introduced in Ontario, Canada in 2019 after the 14 Local Health Integrated Networks (LHINs) were dissolved. The objective of this study is to give an overview of the current state of the OHT model's implementation, and what priority populations and transitions of care models were identified by OHTs. METHODS: This scan involved a structured search for each approved OHT of publicly available resources with three main sources: the full application submitted by the OHT, the OHT website, and a Google search with the name of the OHT. RESULTS: As of July 23, 2021, there were 42 approved OHTs and nine transitions of care programs were identified across nine OHTs. Of the approved OHTs, 38 had identified ten distinct priority populations, and 34 reported partnerships with organizations. CONCLUSIONS: While the approved OHTs currently cover 86% of Ontario's population, not all OHTs are at the same stage of activity. Several areas for improvement were identified, including public engagement, reporting, and accountability. Moreover, OHTs' progress and outcomes should be measured in a standardized manner. These findings may be of interest to healthcare policy or decision-makers looking to implement similar integrated care systems and improve healthcare delivery in their jurisdictions.

Implementation of a Web-Based Communication System for Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists.

Healthcare providers have reported challenges with coordinating care for patients with cancer. Digital technology tools have brought new possibilities for improving care coordination. A web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) was implemented in Ottawa, Canada for cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs). This study aimed to examine PCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote and how access to the system influenced communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. As part of a larger study, we collected and analyzed system usage data and administered an end-of-discussion survey to understand the perceived value of using eOncoNote. eOncoNote data were analyzed for 76 shared patients (33 patients receiving treatment and 43 patients in the survivorship phase). Thirty-nine percent of the PCPs responded to the cancer specialist's initial eOncoNote message and nearly all of those sent only one message. Forty-five percent of the PCPs completed the survey. Most PCPs reported no additional benefits of using eOncoNote and emphasized the need for electronic medical record (EMR) integration. Over half of the PCPs indicated that eOncoNote could be a helpful service if they had questions about a patient. Future research should examine opportunities for EMR integration and whether additional interventions could support communication between PCPs and cancer specialists.

Connecting unattached patients to comprehensive primary care: a rapid review.

INTRODUCTION: Lack of access to primary care providers (PCPs) is a significant hurdle to receiving high-quality comprehensive health care and creates greater reliance on emergency departments and walk-in clinics. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review and analysis of the literature that discusses approaches to increasing access to continuous care for patients with no PCP ('unattached patients'). RESULTS: Five distinct themes across 38 resources were identified: financial incentives for patients and providers, health care organization, policy intervention, virtual care and health information technology (HIT), and medical education. Approaches that increased attachment were primary care models that combined two or more of these and reflected the Patient's Medical Home (PMH) model. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are individual initiatives that could allow for temporary relief, long-term and community-wide success lies in designing models of primary care that use multiple tools, meet the needs of the community, and are supported by regional, provincial, and national policies.

What is the level of information technology maturity in Ontario's long-term care homes? A cross-sectional survey study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The number of Canadians 75 years and older is expected to double over the next 20 years, putting continuing care systems such as long-term care (LTC) homes under increasing pressure. Health information technology (IT) has been found to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of care in numerous clinical settings and could help optimise LTC for residents. However, the level of health IT adoption in Ontario's LTC homes is unknown and, as a result, requires an accurate assessment to provide a baseline understanding for future planning. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a cross-sectional design to investigate the level of IT maturity in Ontario's LTC homes. IT maturity will be assessed with the LTC IT Maturity Instrument, a validated survey examining IT capabilities, the extent of IT use and degree of internal/external IT integration across the domains of resident care, clinical support and administrative activities. All LTC homes in Ontario will be invited to participate. The Director of Care for each home will be directly contacted for recruitment. The survey will be distributed online (or by paper, if preferred) to LTC homes and completed by a staff member designated by the LTC to be knowledgeable about its IT systems. Analyses will consist of descriptive statistics characterising IT maturity across LTC homes and inferential statistics to examine the association between key facility-level characteristics (size, ownership, rurality) and IT maturity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was reviewed by the Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board and was exempt from full ethics review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presentations to the scientific community and stakeholders. Dissemination of our findings will not only inform provincial planning for harnessing the potential of technology in LTC but may also enable quality improvement initiatives in individual LTC homes.

Evaluation of BASE eConsult Manitoba: patient perspectives on the use of electronic consultation to improve access to specialty advice in Manitoba.

BACKGROUND: The burden of waiting to access specialist expertise may contribute to poorer health outcomes and causes distress for patients and providers. One solution to improve access to specialist care is to use innovative tools such as remote asynchronous electronic consultation (eConsult). Modeled after the Champlain BASE™ (Building Access to Specialist Advice) eConsult service, BASE™ eConsult Manitoba was launched in 2017 to help address long waits for patients to access specialist advice. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate patients' experiences after obtaining a BASE™ eConsult Manitoba service in their primary care setting. METHODS: Patients whose Primary Care Providers (PCPs) used BASE™ eConsult as part of their care were asked to participate and complete a telephone-based or online 29-question survey between January 2021 and October 2021. The survey questions were created in consultation with patient partners and based on questions asked in studies done in other jurisdictions. RESULTS: Of the 36 patients who chose to participate, 29 completed the entire survey (80%). Two-thirds (n = 22) agreed that eConsult has been helpful in their situation, and over 80% (n = 24) of participants agreed that eConsult was an acceptable way to access specialist care. During the visit when their PCP sent the eConsult, 7 patients were expecting to be referred to a specialist for a face-to-face consultation. Over half of all respondents (n = 15) reported that before the eConsult occurred, their PCP asked them what questions they wanted to be answered by the specialist. Almost all of these respondents' questions were fully answered by the eConsult. All of the respondents were satisfied with the experience of receiving an eConsult. CONCLUSION: Using eConsult is an acceptable way to improve access to specialist advice from patients' perspectives. Consideration should be given to expanding the use of eConsult services to improve access to specialist expertise for PCPs and their patients.

Web-Based Asynchronous Tool to Facilitate Communication Between Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care. METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization. RESULTS: The results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785.

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.

A retrospective analysis of the use of electronic consultation in general internal medicine.

BACKGROUND: General internists in Canada are subspecialty providers in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Electronic consultations (eConsult) allow primary care providers (PCPs) to virtually consult specialists to address clinical questions. There is a paucity of literature examining the utility and benefits of eConsults by general internists. AIMS: To determine how an eConsult service is used to access general internists. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of internal medicine cases was completed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2019 via the ChamplainBASE eConsult service. Two authors derived and validated a general internal medicine (GIM)-specific taxonomy using the validated: (i) Taxonomy of Generic Clinical Questions; and (ii) Internal Classification for Primary Care. Two hundred seventy-six cases were coded following taxonomy validation. ChamplainBASE utilisation summary and closeout survey data were also analysed. RESULTS: eConsults were responded to in a median of 3.1 days and took 15 min to complete. The eConsult's helpfulness and educational value were rated as 4 to 5/5 and often provided advice for a new or additional course of action. In-person referral was avoided in 40% of cases. The majority of eConsults consisted of a single question (88%) related to diagnostic clarification. The median remuneration per eConsult was $50. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of eConsults to general internists sought diagnostic clarification and confirmed the view of general internists as expert diagnosticians. eConsults cost less than an in-person consultation and were viewed favourably by PCPs. Further research can consider the eConsult provider experience and whether eConsults should become a required part of GIM ambulatory practice.

Electronic consultation use by advanced practice nurses in older adult care-A descriptive study of service utilization data.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe characteristics of service utilization by advanced practice nurses (APNs) employing an electronic consultation (eConsult) service in their care for older adults. BACKGROUND: Canada's aging population is projected to place unprecedented demands on the healthcare system. APNs, which include clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) and nurse practitioners (NPs), are nurses with advanced knowledge who can independently provide age-appropriate care. eConsult is a secure web-based platform enabling asynchronous, provider-to-provider communication. APNs can send and receive eConsults to address patient-specific concerns. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of eConsult utilization and user survey data for cases completed in 2019, reported in line with the STROBE guidelines. Eligible eConsults included those that had APN involvement (as a referrer or responder) and were concerning an older patient (≥65 years). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse service utilization and survey response data. RESULTS: Of 430 eligible eConsults, 421 (97.9%) were initiated by NPs and the rest by physicians. 23 (5.3%) were received by a CNS, of which 14 (3.3%) involved an NP-to-CNS exchange. Median specialist response interval was 0.9 days. 53% of eConsults was for dermatology, haematology, cardiology, gastroenterology and endocrinology. 73% of eConsults avoided a face-to-face referral after the consultation. In 90% of eConsults, APNs rated the service as helpful and/or educational. CONCLUSIONS: Through eConsult, APNs can collaborate with each other and physicians to access and provide a breadth of advice facilitating timely specialist-informed care for older patients, thus helping to alleviate some of the demands placed on the healthcare system. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: There is an opportunity for APNs to further adopt eConsult into their clinical practice, and this can, in turn, support the integration of the APN role in the health workforce. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Current APN eConsult users were involved in the study design and interpretation of results.

Expanding the scope of an eConsult service: acceptability and feasibility of an optometry-ophthalmology pilot project.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of connecting optometrists to ophthalmologists on an eConsult service. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of utilization data and an anonymous survey. PARTICIPANTS: All eConsult cases sent by optometrists between March 2019 and February 2020 (utilization data); optometrists and ophthalmologists participating in the eConsult Vision Pilot Project (survey). METHODS: Utilization data for the study period were collected automatically and underwent descriptive analysis. Participating optometrists and ophthalmologists received an email invitation to a survey assessing the project. RESULTS: Thirteen optometrists from 5 clinics in the southeast region and 7 ophthalmologists were recruited to participate in the pilot project. Optometrists sent 109 eConsults in a 13-month period, representing 33% of all cases submitted to ophthalmology through the eConsult service provincially (March 2019-March 2020). Sixty-eight percent of respondents to an anonymous online survey valued the recruitment and engagement of eye care professionals from the same health region. The influence of the eConsult service was reported to have a "somewhat positive" (27%) to "very positive" (50%) influence on the relationship between the two professional groups. CONCLUSION: The eConsult Vision Pilot Project fills a gap in service and provides an opportunity for patients to get access to specialty advice. We demonstrated that allowing optometrists to solicit specialist advice from ophthalmologists was acceptable and feasible.

Scaling-Up eConsult: Promising Strategies to Address Enabling Factors in Four Jurisdictions in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Effective healthcare innovations are often not scaled up beyond their initial local context. Lack of practical knowledge on how to move from local innovations to large-system improvement hinders innovation and learning capacity in health systems. Studying scale-up processes can lead to a better understanding of how to facilitate the scale-up of interventions. eConsult is a digital health innovation that aims to connect primary care professionals with specialists through an asynchronous electronic consultation. The recent implementation of eConsult in the public health systems of four Canadian jurisdictions provides a unique opportunity to identify different enabling strategies and related factors that promote the scaling up of eConsult across jurisdictions. METHODS: We conducted a narrative case study in four Canadian provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and Newfoundland & Labrador, over a 3-year period (2018-2021). We observed provincial eConsult committee meetings (n=65) and national eConsult forums (n=3), and we reviewed internal documents (n=93). We conducted semi-structured interviews with key actors in each jurisdiction (eg, researchers, primary care professionals, specialists, policy-makers, and patient partners) (n=40). We conducted thematic analysis guided by the literature on factors and strategies used to scale up innovations. RESULTS: We identified a total of 31 strategies related to six key enabling factors to scaling up eConsult, including: (1) multi-actor engagement; (2) relative advantage; (3) knowledge transfer; (4) strong evidence base; (5) physician leadership; and (6) resource acquisition (eg, human, material, and financial resources). More commonly used strategies, such as leveraging research infrastructure and bringing together various actors, were used to address multiple enabling factors. CONCLUSION: Actors used various strategies to scale up eConsult within their respective contexts, and these helped address six key factors that seemed to be essential to the scale-up of eConsult.