Dataset Information

Supporting the spread and scale-up of electronic consultation across Canada: cross-sectional analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the process of implementing an electronic consultation (eConsult) service and evaluate its impact along key metrics outlined by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

Clinics using eConsult in four provinces across Canada: Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Participants

All eConsult cases submitted in four participating provinces were included.

Intervention

The eConsult service is a secure online application that allows primary care providers and specialists to communicate regarding a patient's care. We measured the impact using system utilisation data and mandatory close-out surveys completed at the end of each eConsult.

Main outcome measures

Implementation progress and impact were examined using the five categories outlined by the RE-AIM framework: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance.

Results

Four provinces provided data from different periods, ranging from 4?years (Alberta) to 10 months (Manitoba). Total cases completed ranged from 96 (Manitoba) to 6885 (Alberta). Newfoundland had the largest menu of available specialties (n=35), while Alberta and Quebec had the smallest (n=22). The most frequently requested groups varied across provinces, with only endocrinology appearing in the top five for all provinces. The average specialist response time ranged from 3 days (Manitoba) to 16.7 days (Alberta). Between 54% (Newfoundland) and 66% (Manitoba) of cases resulted in new or additional information. Primary care providers avoided completing referrals they had originally considered in 36% (Newfoundland) to 53% of cases (Manitoba), while only between 27 % (Quebec) and 29% (Newfoundland) of cases resulted in a referral. In every province, services demonstrated higher rates of usage in their last quarter of data than their first.

Conclusions

eConsult was successfully implemented in four new provinces across Canada. Implementation strategies and scope varied, but services demonstrated substantial consistency on several key metrics, most notably on whether new information was learnt and impact on decision to refer.

SUBMITTER: Liddy C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6550029 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Supporting the spread and scale-up of electronic consultation across Canada: cross-sectional analysis.

Liddy Clare C Bello Aminu A Bello Aminu A Cook Jean J Drimer Neil N Pilon Maxine Dumas MD Farrell Gerard G Glassford Jodi J Ireland Laurie L McDonald Rana R Nabelsi Véronique V Oppenheimer Luis L Singer Alex A Keely Erin E

BMJ open 20190530 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the process of implementing an electronic consultation (eConsult) service and evaluate its impact along key metrics outlined by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional study.<h4>Setting</h4>Clinics using eConsult in four provinces across Canada: Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.<h4>Participants</h4>All eConsult cases submitted in four participating provinces were inclu ...[more]

PMID: 31152043

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Ontario electronic consultation (eConsult) service allows a primary care provider (PCP) to access specialist advice through 2 models: the direct-to-specialist (DTS) model, where PCPs select a specialist from a directory, and the Building Access to Specialists Through eConsultation (BASE)-managed specialty service, where PCPs choose a specialty group and are assigned a specialist from a qualified pool based on availability.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to examine patterns of use between the 2 models of eConsult delivery.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of utilization data collected from eConsults completed between October 2018 and September 2019. Cases were grouped based on the model used for submission (ie, BASE or DTS). Each model was assessed for the number of cases over time, specialty distribution, proportion resulting in new or additional information, impact on PCPs' decisions to refer, and billing time.ResultsPCPs submitted 26,121 eConsults during the study period. The monthly case volume increased by 43% over the duration of the study, primarily in the BASE model (66% compared to 6% for DTS). PCPs were able to confirm a course of action that they originally had in mind in 41.4% (6373/15,376) of BASE cases and 41.3% (3363/8136) of DTS cases and received advice for a new or additional course of action in 54.7% (8418/15,376) of BASE cases and 56.3% (4582/8136) of DTS cases. A referral was originally contemplated but avoided in 51.3% (7887/15,376) of BASE cases and 53.3% (4336/8136) of DTS cases, originally contemplated and still needed in 19.4% (2986/15,376) of BASE cases and 17.7% (1438/8136) of DTS cases, and neither originally contemplated nor needed in 21.7% (3334/15,376) of BASE cases and 21.9% (1781/8136) of DTS cases.ConclusionsBoth eConsult models had strong uptake. Use patterns varied between models, with the majority of growth occurring under BASE, but survey responses showed that both models provided similar outcomes in terms of new information offered and impact on decision to refer.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Parents often use digital media to search for information related to their children's health. As the quantity and quality of digital sources meant specifically for parents expand, parents' digital health literacy is increasingly important to process the information they retrieve. One of the earliest developed and widely used instruments to assess digital health literacy is the self-reported eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS). However, the eHEALS has not been psychometrically validated in a sample of parents. Given the inconsistency of the eHEALS underlying factor structure across previous reports, it is particularly important for validation to occur. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to determine the factor structure of the German eHEALS measure in a sample of parents by adopting classic and modern psychometric approaches. In particular, this study sought to identify the eHEALS validity as a unidimensional index as well as the viability for potential subscales. METHODS:A cross-sectional design was used across two purposive sampling frames: online and paper administrations. Responses were collected between January 2018 and May 2018 from 703 Swiss-German parents. In addition to determining the sampling characteristics, we conducted exploratory factor analysis of the eHEALS by considering its ordinal structure using polychoric correlations. This analysis was performed separately for online-based and paper-based responses to examine the general factor strength of the eHEALS as a unidimensional index. Furthermore, item response theory (IRT) analyses were conducted by fitting eHEALS to a bifactor model to further inspect its unidimensionality and subscale viability. RESULTS:Parents in both samples were predominantly mothers (622/703, 88.5%), highly educated (538/703, 76.9%), of Swiss nationality (489/703, 71.8%), and living with a partner (692/703, 98.4%). Factor analyses of the eHEALS indicated the presence of a strong general factor across both paper and online samples, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicated that the eHEALS total sum score was not significantly different between the paper and online samples (P=.12). Finally, the IRT analyses indicated negligible multidimensionality, insufficient subscale reliability after accounting for the eHEALS general factor, and a reduced subset of items that could serve as a unidimensional index of the eHEALS across the paper and online samples. CONCLUSIONS:The German eHEALS evidenced good psychometric properties in a parent-specific study sample. Factor analyses indicated a strong general factor across purposively distinct sample frames (online and paper). IRT analyses validated the eHEALS as a unidimensional index while failing to find support for subscale usage.

Project description:BackgroundThe European cross-border electronic prescription (CBeP) and cross-border electronic dispensing system was first implemented in January 2019 when it became possible to purchase medications from community pharmacies in Estonia using a Finnish ePrescription. In 2020, Estonian ePrescriptions became available to be dispensed in Finnish pharmacies. The CBeP is an important milestone in increasing access to medicines across the European Union, and it has been unstudied to date.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate Estonian and Finnish pharmacists' experiences of factors influencing access to, and dispensing of, CBePs.MethodsA web-based survey was conducted among Estonian and Finnish pharmacists between April and May 2021. The survey was distributed to all 664 community pharmacies (n=289, 43.5% in Estonia and n=375, 56.5% in Finland) where CBePs had been dispensed in 2020. The data were analyzed using frequencies and a chi-square test. Answers to open-ended questions were categorized using content analysis and then analyzed by frequency.ResultsIn total, 66.7% (84/126) of the responses from Estonia and 76.6% (154/201) of the responses from Finland were included in the study. The majority of Estonian (74/84, 88%) and Finnish (126/154, 81.8%) respondents agreed that CBePs have improved patients' access to medications. Problems with the availability of medications when dispensing CBePs were reported by 76% (64/84) of the Estonian respondents and 35.1% (54/154) of the Finnish respondents. In Estonia, the most commonly reported availability problem concerned the same active ingredient (49/84, 58%) of the medication not being available in the market, whereas in Finland, the most common issue was the unavailability of equivalent package size in the market (30/154, 19.5%). Encountering ambiguities or errors in the CBePs was reported by 61% (51/84) of the Estonian respondents and 42.8% (66/154) of the Finnish respondents. Mostly, the availability issues and ambiguities or errors were encountered rarely. The most commonly encountered ambiguities or errors were incorrect pharmaceutical form (23/84, 27%) in Estonia and incorrect total amount of medication (21/154, 13.6%) in Finland. Technical problems with using the CBeP system were reported by 57% (48/84) of the Estonian respondents and 40.2% (62/154) of the Finnish respondents. Most of the Estonian and Finnish respondents (53/84, 63%, and 133/154, 86.4%, respectively) had access to guidelines for dispensing CBePs. More than half of the Estonian (52/84, 62%) and Finnish (95/154, 61.7%) respondents felt that they had received sufficient training on dispensing CBePs.ConclusionsPharmacists in both Estonia and Finland agreed that CBePs improve access to medications. However, interfering factors, such as ambiguities or errors in CBePs and technical problems in the CBeP system, can reduce access to medications. The respondents had received sufficient training and were informed of the guidelines; however, they felt that the content of the guidelines could be improved.

Dataset Information

Supporting the spread and scale-up of electronic consultation across Canada: cross-sectional analysis.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Supporting the spread and scale-up of electronic consultation across Canada: cross-sectional analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets