Dataset Information

Internet based consultations to transfer knowledge for patients requiring specialised care: retrospective case review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To assess whether transferring knowledge from specialists at centres of excellence to referring doctors through online consultations can improve the management of patients requiring specialised care. DESIGN: Retrospective case review of the first year of internet based patient initiated consultations between referring doctors and consulting specialists. SETTING: US teaching hospitals affiliated with an organisation providing internet based consultations. PARTICIPANTS: Doctors in various settings around the world engaging in internet based consultations with specialists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: New recommendations for treatment, change in diagnosis, and turnaround time for consultation compared with time to see a specialist. RESULTS: 79 consultations took place. 90% (n=71) of consultations were for services related to oncology. 90% of consultations involved new recommendations for treatment. The most common recommendation was a new chemotherapeutic regimen (68%, n=54). Diagnosis changed in 5% (n=4) of cases. The average turnaround time was 6.8 working days compared with an average of 19 working days to see a comparable specialist. CONCLUSIONS: Internet based consultations between specialists at centres of excellence and referring doctors contribute to patient care through recommendations for new treatment and timely access to specialist knowledge. Although change in diagnosis occurred in only a few cases, the prognostic and therapeutic implications for these patients may be profound.

SUBMITTER: Kedar I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC152369 | biostudies-literature | 2003 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Internet based consultations to transfer knowledge for patients requiring specialised care: retrospective case review.

Kedar Iris I Ternullo Joseph L JL Weinrib Carol E CE Kelleher Kathleen M KM Brandling-Bennett Heather H Kvedar Joseph C JC

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20030301 7391

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess whether transferring knowledge from specialists at centres of excellence to referring doctors through online consultations can improve the management of patients requiring specialised care.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective case review of the first year of internet based patient initiated consultations between referring doctors and consulting specialists.<h4>Setting</h4>US teaching hospitals affiliated with an organisation providing internet based consultations.<h4>Particip ...[more]

PMID: 12663408

Similar Datasets

Project description:The importance of linking evidence into practice and policy is recognised as a key pillar of a prudent approach to healthcare; it is of importance to healthcare professionals and decision-makers across the world in every speciality. However, rapid access to evidence to support service redesign, or to change practice at pace, is challenging. This is particularly so in smaller specialties such as Palliative Care, where pressured multidisciplinary clinicians lack time and skill sets to locate and appraise the literature relevant to a particular area. Therefore, we have initiated the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS), a knowledge transfer partnership through which we have developed a clear methodology to conduct evidence reviews to support professionals and other decision-makers working in palliative care.PaCERS methodology utilises modified systematic review methods as there is no agreed definition or an accepted methodology for conducting rapid reviews. This paper describes the stages involved based on our iterative recent experiences and engagement with stakeholders, who are the potential beneficiaries of the research. Uniquely, we emphasise the process and opportunities of engagement with the clinical workforce and policy-makers throughout the review, from developing and refining the review question at the start through to the importance of demonstrating impact. We are faced with the challenge of the trade-off between the timely transfer of evidence against the risk of impacting on rigour. To address this issue, we try to ensure transparency throughout the review process. Our methodology aligns with key principles of knowledge synthesis in defining a process that is transparent, robust and improving the efficiency and timeliness of the review.Our reviews are clinically or policy driven and, although we use modified systematic review methods, one of the key differences between published review processes and our review process is in our relationship with the requester. This streamlining approach to synthesising evidence in a timely manner helps to inform decisions faced by clinicians and decision-makers in healthcare settings, supporting, at pace, knowledge transfer and mobilisation.

Project description:BackgroundPalliative care focuses on identifying, from a holistic perspective, the needs of those experiencing problems associated with life-threatening illnesses. As older people approach the end of their lives, they can experience a complex series of problems that health-care professionals must identify and document in their patients' records. Documentation is thus important for ensuring high-quality patient care. Previous studies of documentation in older people's patient records performed in various care contexts have shown that such documentation almost exclusively concerns physical problems. This study explores, in the context of Swedish specialised palliative care, the content of documentation in older people's patient records, focusing on documented problems, wishes, aspects of wellbeing, use of assessment tools, interventions, and documentation associated with the person's death.MethodsA retrospective review based on randomly selected records (n = 92) of older people receiving specialised palliative care, at home or in a palliative in-patient ward, who died in 2017. A review template was developed based on the literature and on a review of sampled records of patients who died the preceding year. The template was checked for inter-rater agreement and used to code all clinical notes in the patients' records. Data were processed using descriptive statistics.ResultsThe most common clinical notes in older people's patient records concerned interventions (n = 16,031, 71%), mostly related to pharmacological interventions (n = 4318, 27%). The second most common clinical notes concerned problems (n = 2804, 12%), pain being the most frequent, followed by circulatory, nutrition, and anxiety problems. Clinical notes concerning people's wishes and wellbeing-related details were documented, but not frequently. Symptom assessment tools, except for pain assessments, were rarely used. More people who received care in palliative in-patient wards died alone than did people who received care in their own homes.ConclusionsIdentifying and documenting the complexity of problems in a more structured and planned way could be a method for implementing a more holistic approach to end-of-life care. Using patient-reported outcome measures capturing more than one symptom or problem, and a systematic documentation structure would help in identifying unmet needs and developing holistic documentation of end-of-life care.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this paper is to describe and reflect on the role of knowledge brokers (KBs) in the Seniors Health Research Transfer Network (SHRTN). The paper reviews the relevant literature on knowledge brokering, and then describes the evolving role of knowledge brokering in this knowledge network.MethodsThe description of knowledge brokering provided here is based on a developmental evaluation program and on the experiences of the authors. Data were gathered through qualitative and quantitative methods, analyzed by the evaluators, and interpreted by network members who participated in sensemaking forums. The results were fed back to the network each year in the form of formal written reports that were widely distributed to network members, as well as through presentations to the network's members.ResultsThe SHRTN evaluation and our experiences as evaluators and KBs suggest that a SHRTN KB facilitates processes of learning whereby people are connected with tacit or explicit knowledge sources that will help them to resolve work-related challenges. To make this happen, KBs engage in a set of relational, technical, and analytical activities that help communities of practice (CoPs) to develop and operate, facilitate exchanges among people with similar concerns and interests, and help groups and individuals to create, explore, and apply knowledge in their practice. We also suggest that the role is difficult to define, emergent, abstract, episodic, and not fully understood.ConclusionsThe KB role within this knowledge network has developed and matured over time. The KB adapts to the social and technical affordances of each situation, and fashions a unique and relevant process to create relationships and promote learning and change. The ability to work with teams and to develop relevant models and feasible approaches are critical KB skills. The KB is a leader who wields influence rather than power, and who is prepared to adopt whatever roles and approaches are needed to bring about a valuable result.

Project description:IntroductionCritical care physicians may benefit from immediate access to medical reference material. We evaluated the feasibility and potential benefits of a handheld computer based knowledge access system linking a central academic intensive care unit (ICU) to multiple community-based ICUs.MethodsFour community hospital ICUs with 17 physicians participated in this prospective interventional study. Following training in the use of an internet-linked, updateable handheld computer knowledge access system, the physicians used the handheld devices in their clinical environment for a 12-month intervention period. Feasibility of the system was evaluated by tracking use of the handheld computer and by conducting surveys and focus group discussions. Before and after the intervention period, participants underwent simulated patient care scenarios designed to evaluate the information sources they accessed, as well as the speed and quality of their decision making. Participants generated admission orders during each scenario, which were scored by blinded evaluators.ResultsTen physicians (59%) used the system regularly, predominantly for nonmedical applications (median 32.8/month, interquartile range [IQR] 28.3-126.8), with medical software accessed less often (median 9/month, IQR 3.7-13.7). Eight out of 13 physicians (62%) who completed the final scenarios chose to use the handheld computer for information access. The median time to access information on the handheld handheld computer was 19 s (IQR 15-40 s). This group exhibited a significant improvement in admission order score as compared with those who used other resources (P = 0.018). Benefits and barriers to use of this technology were identified.ConclusionAn updateable handheld computer system is feasible as a means of point-of-care access to medical reference material and may improve clinical decision making. However, during the study, acceptance of the system was variable. Improved training and new technology may overcome some of the barriers we identified.

Project description:BackgroundLong-term conditions (LTCs) are increasingly important determinants of quality of life and healthcare costs in populations worldwide. The Chronic Care Model and the NHS and Social Care Long Term Conditions Model highlight the use of consultations where patients are invited to attend a consultation with a primary care clinician (practice nurse or GP) to complete a review of the management of the LTC. We report a qualitative study in which we focus on the ways in which QOF (Quality and Outcomes Framework) shapes routine review consultations, and highlight the tensions exposed between patient-centred consulting and QOF-informed LTC management.MethodsA longitudinal qualitative study. We audio-recorded consultations of primary care practitioners with patients with LTCs. We then interviewed both patients and practitioners using tape-assisted recall. Patient participants were followed for three months during which the research team made weekly contact and invited them to complete weekly logs about their health service use. A second interview at three months was conducted with patients. Analysis of the data sets used an integrative framework approach.ResultsPractitioners view consultations as a means of 'surveillance' of patients. Patients present themselves, often passively, to the practitioner for scrutiny, but leave the consultation with unmet biomedical, informational and emotional needs. Patients perceived review consultations as insignificant and irrelevant to the daily management of their LTC and future healthcare needs. Two deviant cases, where the requirements of the 'review' were subsumed to meet the patient's needs, focused on cancer and bereavement.ConclusionsRoutine review consultations in primary care focus on the biomedical agenda set by QOF where the practitioner is the expert, and the patient agenda unheard. Review consultations shape patients' expectations of future care and socialize patients into becoming passive subjects of 'surveillance'. Patient needs outside the narrow protocol of the review are made invisible by the process of review except in extreme cases such as anticipating death and bereavement. We suggest how these constraints might be overcome.

Dataset Information

Internet based consultations to transfer knowledge for patients requiring specialised care: retrospective case review.

Publications

Internet based consultations to transfer knowledge for patients requiring specialised care: retrospective case review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets