Longer-term impact of cardiology e-consults.

AIMS: Cardiac e-consults may be an effective way to deliver value-oriented outpatient cardiology care in an accountable care organization. Initial results of cardiac e-consults have demonstrated high satisfaction among both patients and referring providers, no known adverse events, and low rates of diagnostic testing. Nevertheless, differences between e-consults and traditional consults, effects of e-consults on traditional consult volume, and whether patients seek traditional consults after e-consults are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We established a cardiac e-consult program on January 13, 2014. We then conducted detailed medical record reviews of all patients with e-consults to detect any adverse clinical events and detect subsequent traditional visits to cardiologists. We also performed 2 comparisons. First, we compared age, gender, and referral reason for e-consults vs traditional consults. Second, we compared changes in volume of referrals to cardiology vs other medical specialties that did not have e-consults. From January 13 to December 31, 2014, 1,642 traditional referrals and 165 e-consults were requested. The proportion of e-consults of all evaluations requested over that period was 9.1%. Gender balance was similar among traditional consults and e-consults (44.8% male for e-consults vs 45.0% for traditional consults, P = .981). E-consult patients were younger than traditional consult patients (55.3 vs 60.4 years, P < .001). After the introduction of cardiac e-consults, the increase in traditional cardiac visit requests was less than the increase in traditional visit requests for control specialties (4.5% vs 10.1%, P < .001). For e-consults with at least 6 months of follow-up, 75.6% patients did not have any type of traditional cardiology visit during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: E-consults are an effective and safe mechanism to enhance value in outpatient cardiology care, with low rates of bounceback to traditional consults. E-consults can account for nearly one-tenth of total outpatient consultation volume at 1 year within an accountable care organization and are associated with a reduction in traditional referrals to cardiologists.

Sedation shared decision-making in ambulatory venous access device placement: Effects on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time.

This study was undertaken to determine the impact of shared decision-making when selecting a sedation option, from no sedation (local anesthetic), minimal sedation (anxiolysis with a benzodiazepine) or moderate sedation (benzodiazepine and opiate), for venous access device placement (port-a-cath and tunneled catheters) on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time. This is an IRB-approved, HIPPA-compliant, retrospective study of 198 patients (18-85 years old, 60% female) presenting to an ambulatory vascular interventional radiology department for venous access device placement between 22 October 2014 and 7 October 2015. Patients were educated about sedation options and given the choice of undergoing the procedure with no sedation (local anesthetic only), or minimal or moderate sedation. Satisfaction was assessed through three survey questions. No sedation was selected by 53/198 (27%), minimal sedation by 71/198 (36%) and moderate sedation by 74/198 (37%). All subjects would recommend the option to another patient and valued the opportunity to select a sedation option. Post-procedure recovery time differences were statistically significant (p<0.0001) with median recovery times of 0 minutes for no sedation, 38 minutes for minimal sedation and 64 minutes for moderate sedation. In conclusion, patient sedation preference for venous access device placement is variable, signifying there is a role for shared decision-making as it empowers the patient to select the option most aligned with his or her goals. The procedure is well-tolerated, associated with high satisfaction, and the impact on departmental flow is notable because patients choosing no or minimal sedation results in a decreased post-procedure recovery time burden.

Asynchronous vascular consultation via electronic methods: A feasibility pilot.

Management of chronic disease often requires multidisciplinary clinical efforts and specialist care. With the emergence of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), health care systems are incentivized to evaluate methods of information exchange between generalists and specialists in order to provide value while preserving quality. Our objective was to evaluate patient and referring provider satisfaction and outcomes of asynchronous electronic consultations in vascular care in a large tertiary academic medical center. Referring providers were offered a vascular 'e-consult' option through an electronic referral management system. We conducted chart review to understand the downstream effects and surveyed patients and referring providers to assess satisfaction. From 24 March 2014 to 1 March 2015, 54 e-consults were completed. Additional testing and recommendations were made in 49/54 (90.7%) e-consults, including lower-extremity venous duplex ultrasonography with reflux testing, duplex ultrasonography of the carotid artery, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, non-invasive physiology arterial studies, laboratory tests, medications, compression stockings, and sequential lymphedema compression therapy. Referring providers were compliant with recommendations in 40/49 (81.6%) of e-consults. A total of 17/54 (31.5%) patients were surveyed with a median patient satisfaction score of 13.7/15 (91.3%) (SD ± 6.4). The program was associated with high referring provider satisfaction, with 87.0% finding the e-consult very helpful and 80.0% stating it averted the need for a traditional visit. Our experience suggests that e-consults are an effective way to provide vascular care in some patients and are associated with high patient and provider satisfaction. E-consults may therefore be an efficient method of care delivery for vascular patients within an ACO.

An overview of clinical associate roles in the neurointerventional specialty.

Neurointerventionalists have long partnered with certain types of clinical associates to provide longitudinal care. This overview summarizes differences in education, background, roles, and scopes of practice of the various clinical associates (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, radiology practitioner assistants, radiologist assistants, and nursing care coordinators). Key differences and similarities are highlighted to alleviate confusion about the roles clinical associates can assume on a neurointerventional service. This overview is intended to guide practices as they consider broadening their clinical support teams.