Dataset Information

Electronic patient agenda forms: comparing agreement between the reason for specialty consultation reported by referring providers and patients.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Little is known about the agreement between referring providers' reason for specialty evaluation and patients' understanding of why they are referred for consultation. Here, we compared the reason for consult (RFC) documented by referring providers during usual care vs. the perceived RFC independently reported by patients through an e-portal just prior to the specialist visit. METHODS:We performed an observational study among patients referred for gastrointestinal (GI) evaluation. Patients referred to the specialty clinic submitted their self-reported RFC using an online patient agenda form prior to their visit. Therefore, each participant had a referring provider- and patient-documented RFC. Blinded physicians reviewed the RFCs in random order using a priori coding criteria. We then compared whether the provider and patient RFC pairs were concordant (i.e., ?1 clinical topic[s] in the RFCs matched). RESULTS:Sixty patients completed the e-portal prior to their visit, leading to 60 provider-patient RFC pairs. The RFC pairs were concordant in only 52% of cases. CONCLUSIONS:There is poor agreement between referring providers' reason for GI referral and patients' understanding of why they are visiting the clinic. Future research examining whether electronic patient agenda forms impact diagnostic and management precision, patient satisfaction, and healthcare utilization is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Ahmed S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6126991 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Electronic patient agenda forms: comparing agreement between the reason for specialty consultation reported by referring providers and patients.

Ahmed Shahzad S Almario Christopher V CV Chey William D WD Robbins Lori A LA Chang Bianca B Ahn Joseph J Ko Jeffrey J Gu Phillip P Siu Alvin A Spiegel Brennan M R BMR

Informatics for health & social care 20180306 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Little is known about the agreement between referring providers' reason for specialty evaluation and patients' understanding of why they are referred for consultation. Here, we compared the reason for consult (RFC) documented by referring providers during usual care vs. the perceived RFC independently reported by patients through an e-portal just prior to the specialist visit.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed an observational study among patients referred for gastrointestinal (GI) e ...[more]

PMID: 29509054

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The majority of undiagnosed diseases manifest with objective findings that warrant further investigation. The Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) receives applications from patients whose symptoms and signs have been intractable to diagnosis; however, many UDN applicants are affected primarily by subjective symptoms such as pain and fatigue. We sought to characterize presenting symptoms, referral sources, and demographic factors of applicants to the UDN to identify factors that may determine application outcome and potentially differentiate between those with undiagnosed diseases (with more objective findings) and those who are less likely to have an undiagnosed disease (more subjective symptoms). METHODS:We used a systematic retrospective review of 151 consecutive Not Accepted and 50 randomly selected Accepted UDN applications. The primary outcome was whether an applicant was Accepted, or Not Accepted, and, if accepted, whether or not a diagnosis was made. Objective and subjective symptoms and information on prior specialty consultations were collected from provider referral letters. Demographic data and decision data on network acceptance were gathered from the UDN online portal. RESULTS:Fewer objective findings and more subjective symptoms were found in the Not Accepted applications. Not Accepted referrals also were from older individuals, reported a shorter period of illness, and were referred to the UDN by their primary care physicians. All of these differences reached statistical significance in comparison with Accepted applications. The frequency of subspecialty consults for diagnostic purposes prior to UDN application was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:The preponderance of subjective and lack of objective findings in the Not Accepted applications distinguish these from applicants that are accepted for evaluation and diagnostic efforts through the UDN. Not Accepted applicants are referred primarily by their primary care providers after multiple specialist consultations fail to yield answers. Distinguishing between patients with undiagnosed diseases with objective findings and those with primarily subjective findings can delineate patients who would benefit from further diagnostic processes from those who may have functional disorders and need alternative pathways for management of their symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov NCT02450851 , posted May 21st 2015.

Project description:Work-related stress is common in Western society and disorders associated with stress are often managed in primary health care. This study was set to increase the understanding of the relationship between reason for consultation, work-related stress and diagnosis-specific sick leave for primary health care patients. The longitudinal observational study included 232 employed non-sick listed patients at seven primary health care centres in Sweden. Of these patients, 102 reported high work-related stress, as measured with the Work Stress Questionnaire, and 84 were on registered sick leave within one year after inclusion. The study showed that, compared to those who did not report high work-related stress, highly stressed patients more often sought care for mental symptoms (60/102 versus 24/130), sleep disturbance (37/102 versus 22/130) and fatigue (41/102 versus 34/130). The risk for sick leave with a mental diagnosis within a year after base-line was higher among patients reporting high work-related stress than among those who did not (RR 2.97, 95% CI 1.59;5.55). No such association was however found for the risk of sick leave with a musculoskeletal diagnosis (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.22;1.37). Seeking care for mental symptoms, sleep disturbance and fatigue were associated with having a future mental sick leave diagnosis (p-values < 0.001), while seeking care for musculoskeletal symptoms was associated with having a future musculoskeletal sick leave diagnosis (p-value 0.009). In summary, compared to those who did not report high work-related stress, patients with high work-related stress more often sought care for mental symptoms, sleep disturbance and fatigue which lead to a mental sick leave diagnosis. Reporting high work-related stress was, however, not linked to having sought care for musculoskeletal symptoms nor future sick leave due to a musculoskeletal diagnosis. Hence, both patients and general practitioners seem to characterize work-related stress as a mental complaint.

Project description:BackgroundGovernments and health care providers are keen to find innovative ways to deliver care more efficiently. Interest in electronic consultation (e-consultation) has grown, but the evidence of benefit is uncertain.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the evidence of delivering e-consultation using secure email and messaging or video links in primary care.MethodsA systematic review was conducted on the use and application of e-consultations in primary care. We searched 7 international databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, EconLit, and Web of Science; 1999-2017), identifying 52 relevant studies. Papers were screened against a detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Independent dual data extraction was conducted and assessed for quality. The resulting evidence was synthesized using thematic analysis.ResultsThis review included 57 studies from a range of countries, mainly the United States (n=30) and the United Kingdom (n=13). There were disparities in uptake and utilization toward more use by younger, employed adults. Patient responses to e-consultation were mixed. Patients reported satisfaction with services and improved self-care, communication, and engagement with clinicians. Evidence for the acceptability and ease of use was strong, especially for those with long-term conditions and patients located in remote regions. However, patients were concerned about the privacy and security of their data. For primary health care staff, e-consultation delivers challenges around time management, having the correct technological infrastructure, whether it offers a comparable standard of clinical quality, and whether it improves health outcomes.ConclusionsE-consultations may improve aspects of care delivery, but the small scale of many of the studies and low adoption rates leave unanswered questions about usage, quality, cost, and sustainability. We need to improve e-consultation implementation, demonstrate how e-consultations will not increase disparities in access, provide better reassurance to patients about privacy, and incorporate e-consultation as part of a manageable clinical workflow.

Project description:BackgroundA comprehensive picture of how the US population engages in specialty care use is lacking, even though redesign models focused on specialty care are becoming more popular.ObjectiveTo describe the type of provider, primary care or specialist, most often seen by individuals, to test associations between type of provider most often seen and insurance coverage, and to test associations between the number of generalist and specialist visits and insurance coverage.DesignCross-sectional analysis of 2013-2016 Medicaid Expenditure Panel Survey. Logistic and negative binomial models were used in multivariate regression modeling.ParticipantsDepending on the analysis, the study samples include between 71,402 and 79,518 US residents.Main measuresIndividuals' provider type most often seen, primary care visits, and specialist visits were reported.Key resultsMore than half of the sample (55%) predominantly visited primary care providers (or generalists), and 36% predominantly visited specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting generalists, 80% visited only one type of primary care provider, and 24% also visited one or more specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting specialists, 48% visited only one type of specialist, and 47% did not visit any generalists in the year. Among Medicare enrollees, 50% predominantly visited specialists, and 40% predominantly visited generalists. Medicare enrollment was associated with greater odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05), and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment and having no insurance were associated with lower odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05). Medicare enrollment was associated with 13% more generalist visits and 35% more specialist visits, and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment was associated with 38% more generalist visits and 15% more specialist visits (all p < 0.05).ConclusionsGiven the overall frequency of specialty care use and the reliance on multiple specialists in any given year, particularly among Medicare enrollees, public payers are uniquely positioned to promote specialty care redesign and champion improved coordination between specialists.

Project description:ImportanceProbation is a cornerstone of efforts to reduce mass incarceration. Although it is understudied, specialty probation could improve outcomes for the overrepresented group of people with mental illness.ObjectiveTo test whether specialty probation yields better public safety outcomes than traditional probation.Design, setting, and participantsA longitudinal observational study with group matching on age, sex, race/ethnicity, probation time, and offense at 2 urban agencies that exemplify specialty and traditional probation. Enrollment began October 19, 2005; follow-up data were complete January 26, 2013. Participants were 359 diverse probationers with serious mental health problems and functional impairment. Probationers and officers were assessed 3 times (for probationers, 6-month retention, 315 of 359 [88%]; 12-month retention 304 of 359 [85%]) and follow-up records were obtained. Machine learning algorithms were combined with a targeted maximum likelihood estimation, a double robust estimator that accounts for associations between confounders and both treatment assignment and outcomes. Statistical analysis was conducted from January 1, 2016 to May 5, 2017.InterventionsSpecialty probationers were assigned to small, homogeneous caseloads supervised by experts. Prior data indicate that specialty officers had better relationships with probationers, participated more in probationers' treatment, and relied more on positive compliance strategies than traditional officers.Main outcomes and measuresViolence during 1 year, determined by probationer report, officer report, and records, and rearrest during a period of 2 to 5 years, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation records.ResultsParticipants were 183 specialty (73.8% of 248 eligible) and 176 traditional (56.6% of 311 eligible) probationers (205 men and 154 women; mean [SD] age, 36.9 [10.6]). Although specialty probation had no significant effect on violence (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.69-1.36), the odds of rearrest were 2.68 times higher for traditional probationers than for specialty probationers (95% CI, 1.86-3.84; P?<?.001). At 2 years, estimated probabilities of rearrest were 28.6% for specialty probationers and 51.8% for traditional probationers. Survival analyses indicate that arrest effects endured up to 5 years.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough it did not specifically reduce violence, well-implemented specialty probation appears to be effective in reducing general recidivism. Reform efforts for people with mental illness could leverage probation-a ubiquitous and revitalized node of the justice system.

Project description:PurposeUnderstanding factors that influence accurate assessment of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) is important to measurement development, epidemiologic studies, and interventions. This study examined agreement between self-reported (International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Long Form [IPAQ-LF]) and accelerometry-based estimates of PA and SB across six countries and identified correlates of between-method agreement.MethodsSelf-report and objective (accelerometry-based) PA and SB data were collected in 2002-2011 from 3865 adult participants in eight cities from six countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States). Between-method relative agreement (correlation) and absolute disagreement (mean difference between conceptually and intensity-matched IPAQ-LF and accelerometry-based PA and SB variables) were estimated. Also, sociodemographic characteristics and PA patterns were examined as correlates of between-method agreement.ResultsObserved relative agreement (relationships of IPAQ-LF with accelerometry-based PA and SB variables) was small to moderate (r = 0.05-0.37) and was moderated by sociodemographic (age, sex, weight status, and education) and behavioral (PA-type) factors. The absolute disagreement was large, with participants self-reporting higher PA intensity and total time in moderate-to-vigorous-intensity PA than accelerometry. Also, self-reported sitting time was lower than accelerometry-based sedentary behavior. After adjusting for sociodemographic and behavioral factors, the absolute disagreement between pairs of IPAQ-LF and accelerometry-based PA variables remained significantly different across cities/countries.ConclusionsPresent findings suggest systematic cultural and/or linguistic and sociodemographic differences in absolute agreement between the IPAQ-LF and the accelerometry-based PA and SB variables. These results have implications for the interpretation of international PA and SB data and correlate/determinant studies. They call for further efforts to improve such measures.

Dataset Information

Electronic patient agenda forms: comparing agreement between the reason for specialty consultation reported by referring providers and patients.

Publications

Electronic patient agenda forms: comparing agreement between the reason for specialty consultation reported by referring providers and patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets