Dataset Information

An eConsultant versus a hospital-based outpatient consultation for general (internal) medicine: a costing analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The eConsultant model of care is an outpatient substitution approach which has been evaluated and implemented extensively internationally. It provides an asynchronous, digital, clinician-to-clinician advice service, giving primary care physicians remote access to specialist support for patient care within 3 business days. Results from initial trials of the eConsultant model in Australia support international evidence of reduced wait times and improved access to specialist input, avoidance of face-to-face hospital outpatient visits, and better integrated care. This study compared the cost of delivery of an eConsultant episode of care with that of a hospital-based outpatient appointment.

Methods

A cost-minimisation analysis, using a decision analytic model, was used to compare the two approaches. eConsultant costs were calculated from specialist reported data (minutes spent preparing the response; the number of patients referred subsequently for a hospital-based outpatient appointment) and administration staff data (time spent recording the occasion-of-service). Outpatient costs were calculated using finance data and information from outpatient clinic managers at the hospital-based outpatient clinic. The primary outcome was incremental cost saving per patient from a hospital system perspective. Uncertainty was explored using one-way sensitivity analyses and characterised with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations.

Results

The traditional referral pathway cost estimate was $587.20/consult compared to $226.13/consult for an eConsultant episode: an efficiency saving of $361.07 per patient. The incremental difference between eConsultant and traditional care was most sensitive to the cost estimate of an outpatient attendance, the time for a specialist to complete an eConsult, and the probability of a patient requiring a face-to-face hospital-based attendance following an eConsult. However, at the upper bounds of each of these estimates, an eConsult remained the most cost-efficient model. In 96.5% of the Monte Carlo simulations eConsult was found to be more cost efficient than the traditional approach.

Conclusions

The eConsultant model of care was associated with a 61.5% efficiency gain, allowing diversion of support to hospital-based outpatient appointments.

SUBMITTER: Job J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10174616 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An eConsultant versus a hospital-based outpatient consultation for general (internal) medicine: a costing analysis.

Job Jenny J Nicholson Caroline C Donald Maria M Jackson Claire C Byrnes Joshua J

BMC health services research 20230511 1

<h4>Background</h4>The eConsultant model of care is an outpatient substitution approach which has been evaluated and implemented extensively internationally. It provides an asynchronous, digital, clinician-to-clinician advice service, giving primary care physicians remote access to specialist support for patient care within 3 business days. Results from initial trials of the eConsultant model in Australia support international evidence of reduced wait times and improved access to specialist inpu ...[more]

PMID: 37170265

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims of the studyResidents in difficulty are a major cause for concern in medical education, with a prevalence of 7-15%. They are often detected late in their training and cannot make use of remediation plans. Nowadays, most training hospitals in Switzerland do not have a specific program to identify and manage residents in difficulty. The aim of the study was to explore the challenges perceived by physicians regarding the process of identifying, diagnosing, and supporting residents in difficulty in a structured and programmatic way. We explored perceptions of physicians at different hierarchical levels (residents (R), Chief residents (CR), attending physicians (A), Chief Physician (CP)) in order to better understand these challenges.MethodsWe conducted an exploratory qualitative study between December 2015 and July 2016. We asked volunteers from the Primary Care Division of the Geneva University Hospitals to partake to three focus groups (with CR, A, R) and one interview with the division's CP. We transcribed, coded, and qualitatively analyzed the three focus groups and the interview, using a content thematic approach and Fishbein's conceptual framework.ResultsWe identified similarities and differences in the challenges of the management of residents in difficulty on a programmatic way amongst physicians of different hierarchical levels. Our main findings: Supervisors (CR, A, CP) have good identification skills of residents in difficulty, but they did not put in place systematic remediation strategies.Supervisors (CR, A) were concerned about managing residents in difficulty. They were aware of the possible adverse effects on patient care, but "feared to harm" resident's career by documenting a poor institutional assessment.Residents "feared to share" their own difficulties with their supervisors. They thought that it would impact their career negatively.The four physician's hierarchical level reported environmental constraints (lack of funding, time constraint, lack of time and resources…).ConclusionOur results add two perspectives to specialized recommendations regarding the implementation of remediation programs for residents in difficulty. The first revolves around the need to identify and fully understand not only the beliefs but also the implicit norms and the feeling of self-efficacy that are shared by teachers and that are likely to motivate them to engage in the management of residents in difficulty. The second emphasizes the importance of analyzing these elements that constitute the context for a change and of identifying, in close contact with the heads of the institutions, which factors may favor or hinder it. This research action process has fostered awareness and discussions at different levels. Since then, various actions and processes have been put in place at the Faculty of Medicine in Geneva.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Short hospital stays may represent opportunities to avert unnecessary admissions or expedite inpatient care. To inform the design of interventions that target patients with potentially avoidable hospital admissions or brief stays, we examined the patient, physician and situational characteristics associated with short stays among patients admitted to general internal medicine wards and describe the use of hospital resources by these patients. METHODS:This was a multicentre cross-sectional study conducted between Apr. 1, 2012, and Mar. 31, 2015, at 5 teaching hospitals in Toronto. We included all general internal medicine admissions through the emergency department. We examined patient, physician and situational predictors of a short hospital stay, which was defined as the patient's being discharged home alive in 2 possible time windows: less than 24 hours, or 72 hours or less. RESULTS:The final study sample included 56 055 admissions and 37 700 unique patients. Patients discharged in less than 24 hours and in 72 hours or less accounted for 4245 (7.6%) and 13 442 (31.6%) admissions, respectively. After we controlled for patient factors, patients of female physicians were less likely than those of male physicians to have stays lasting less than 24 hours (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.86) or 72 hours or less (adjusted OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.79-0.86). Patients admitted at night or on a weekday were significantly more likely than those admitted at other times to have stays lasting less than 24 hours (night: adjusted OR 2.73, 95% CI 2.44-3.06; weekday: adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.17-1.36) or 72 hours or less (night: adjusted OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.37, weekday: adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.10). Among stays lasting less than 24 hours and 24-72 hours, intravenously administered medications were ordered for 2788 (65.7%) and 10 722 (79.8%) patients, respectively, and computed tomography scans were performed for 1561 (36.8%) and 5354 (39.1%) patients, respectively. INTERPRETATION:Short general internal medicine hospital stays were common and were associated with patient, physician and situational factors. Interventions to avert hospital admission or reduce length of stay may be more effective if they are accessible outside typical working hours and provide access to intravenous therapy and radiological investigations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The precise scope of hospital care delivered under general internal medicine services remains poorly quantified. The purpose of this study was to describe the demographic characteristics, medical conditions, health outcomes and resource use of patients admitted to general internal medicine at 7 hospital sites in the Greater Toronto Area. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study involving all patients who were admitted to or discharged from general internal medicine at the study sites between Apr. 1, 2010, and Mar. 31, 2015. Clinical data from hospital electronic information systems were linked to administrative data from each hospital. We examined trends in resource use and patient characteristics over the study period. RESULTS:There were 136 208 admissions to general internal medicine involving 88 121 unique patients over the study period. General internal medicine admissions accounted for 38.8% of all admissions from the emergency department and 23.7% of all hospital bed-days. Over the study period, the number of admissions to general internal medicine increased by 32.4%; there was no meaningful change in the median length of stay or cost per hospital stay. The median patient age was 73 (interquartile range [IQR] 57-84) years, and the median number of coexisting conditions was 6 (IQR 3-9). The median acute length of stay was 4.6 (IQR 2.5-8.6) days, and the median total cost per hospital stay was $5850 (IQR $3915-$10 061). Patients received at least 1 computed tomography scan in 52.2% of admissions. The most common primary discharge diagnoses were pneumonia (5.0% of admissions), heart failure (4.7%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.1%), urinary tract infection (4.0%) and stroke (3.6%). INTERPRETATION:Patients admitted to general internal medicine services represent a large, heterogeneous, resource-intensive and growing population. Understanding and improving general internal medicine care is essential to promote a high-quality, sustainable health care system.

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend routine frailty screening for all hospitalised older adults to inform care decisions, based mainly on studies in elective or speciality-specific settings. However, most hospital bed days are accounted for by acute non-elective admissions, in which the prevalence and prognostic value of frailty might differ, and uptake of screening is limited. We therefore did a systematic review and meta-analysis of frailty prevalence and outcomes in unplanned hospital admissions.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL up to 31/01/2023 and included observational studies using validated frailty measures in adult hospital-wide or general medicine admissions. Summary data on the prevalence of frailty and associated outcomes, measurement tools, study setting (hospital-wide vs general medicine), and design (prospective vs retrospective) were extracted and risk of bias assessed (modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklists). Unadjusted relative risks (RR; moderate/severe frailty vs no/mild) for mortality (within one year), length of stay (LOS), discharge destination and readmission were calculated and pooled, where appropriate, using random-effects models. PROSPERO CRD42021235663.FindingsAmong 45 cohorts (median/SD age = 80/5 years; n = 39,041,266 admissions, n = 22 measurement tools) moderate/severe frailty ranged from 14.3% to 79.6% overall (and in the 26 cohorts with low-moderate risk of bias) with considerable heterogeneity between studies (phet < 0.001) preventing pooling of results but with rates <25% in only 3 cohorts. Moderate/severe vs no/mild frailty was associated with increased mortality (n = 19 cohorts; RR range = 1.08-3.70), more consistently among cohorts using clinically administered tools (n = 11; RR range = 1.63-3.70; phet = 0.08; pooled RR = 2.53, 95% CI = 2.15-2.97) vs cohorts using (retrospective) administrative coding data (n = 8; RR range = 1.08-3.02; phet < 0.001). Clinically administered tools also predicted increasing mortality across the full range of frailty severity in each of the six cohorts that allowed ordinal analysis (all p < 0.05). Moderate/severe vs no/mild frailty was also associated with a LOS >8 days (RR range = 2.14-3.04; n = 6) and discharge to a location other than home (RR range = 1.97-2.82; n = 4) but was inconsistently related to 30-day readmission (RR range = 0.83-1.94; n = 12). Associations remained clinically significant after adjustment for age, sex and comorbidity where reported.InterpretationFrailty is common in older patients with acute, non-elective hospital admission and remains predictive of mortality, LOS and discharge home with more severe frailty associated with greater risk, justifying more widespread implementation of screening using clinically administered tools.FundingNone.

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying potentially avoidable admissions to Canadian hospitals is an important health system goal. With general internal medicine (GIM) accounting for 40% of hospital admissions, we sought to develop a method to identify potentially avoidable admissions and characterize patient, provider and health system factors.MethodsWe conducted an observational study of GIM admissions at our institution from August 2019 to February 2020. We defined potentially avoidable admissions as admissions that could be managed in an appropriate and safe manner in the emergency department or ambulatory setting and asked staff physicians to screen admissions daily and flag candidates as potentially avoidable admissions. For each candidate, we prepared a case review and debriefed with members of the admitting team. We then reviewed each candidate with our research team, assigned an avoidability score (1 [low] to 4 [high]) and identified contributing factors for those with scores of 3 or more.ResultsWe screened 601 total admissions and staff physicians flagged 117 (19.5%) of these as candidate potential avoidable admissions. Consensus review identified 67 candidates as potentially avoidable admissions (11.1%, 95% confidence interval 8.8%-13.9%); these patients were younger (mean age 65 yr v. 72 yr), had fewer comorbidities (Canadian Institute for Health Information Case Mix Group+ 0.42 v. 1.14), had lower resource-intensity weighting scores (0.72 v. 1.50) and shorter hospital lengths of stay (29 h v. 105 h) (p < 0.01). Common factors included diagnostic and therapeutic uncertainty, perceived need for short-term monitoring, government directive of a 4-hour limit for admission decision-making and subspecialist request to admit.InterpretationOur prospective method of screening, flagging and case review showed that 1 in 9 GIM admissions were potentially avoidable. Other institutions could consider adapting this methodology to ascertain their rate of potentially avoidable admissions and to understand contributing factors to inform improvement endeavours.

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying patients at high risk of hospital preventable readmission is an essential step towards selecting those who might benefit from specific transitional interventions.ObjectiveDerive and validate a predictive risk score for potentially avoidable readmission (PAR) based on analysis of readmissions, with a focus on medication.Design/setting/participantsRetrospective analysis of all hospital admissions to internal medicine wards between 2011 and 2014. Comparison between patients readmitted within 30 days and non-readmitted patients, as identified using a specially designed algorithm. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses of demographic data, clinical diagnoses, laboratory results, and the medication data of patients admitted during the first period (2011-2013), to identify factors associated with PAR. Using these, derive a predictive score with a regression coefficient-based scoring method. Subsequently, validate this score with a second cohort of patients admitted in 2013-2014. Variables were identified at hospital discharge.ResultsThe derivation cohort included 7,317 hospital stays. Multivariate logistic regressions found significant associations with PAR for: [adjusted OR (95% CI)] hospital length of stay > 4 days [1.3 (1.1-1.7)], admission in previous 6 months [2.3 (1.9-2.8)], heart failure [1.3 (1.0-1.7)], chronic ischemic heart disease [1.7 (1.2-2.3)], diabetes with organ damage [2.2 (1.3-3.8)], cancer [1.4 (1.0-1.9)], metastatic carcinoma [1.9 (1.3-3.0)], anemia [1.2 (1.0-1.5)], hypertension [1.3 (1.1-1.7)], arrhythmia [1.3 (1.0-1.6)], hyperkalemia [1.4 (1.0-1.7)], opioid drug prescription [1.3 (1.1-1.6)], and acute myocardial infarction [0.6 (0.4-0.9)]. The PAR-Risk Score, derived from these results, demonstrated fair discriminatory and calibration power (C-statistic = 0.699; Brier Score = 0.069). The results for the validation cohort's operating characteristics were similar (C-statistic = 0.687; Brier Score = 0.064).ConclusionThis study identified routinely-available factors that were significantly associated with PAR. A predictive score was derived and internally validated.

Dataset Information

An eConsultant versus a hospital-based outpatient consultation for general (internal) medicine: a costing analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

An eConsultant versus a hospital-based outpatient consultation for general (internal) medicine: a costing analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets