Dataset Information

Patients Assess an eConsult Model's Acceptability at 5 US Academic Medical Centers.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Electronic consultation (eConsult), involving asynchronous primary care clinician-to-specialist consultation, is being adopted at a growing number of health systems. Most evaluations of eConsult programs have assessed clinical and financial impacts and clinician acceptability. Less attention has been focused on patients' opinions. We set out to understand patient perspectives and preferences for hypothetical eConsult use at 5 US academic medical centers in the process of adopting an eConsult model.

Methods

We invited adult primary care patients to participate in focus groups. Participants were introduced to the eConsult model, considered its potential benefits and drawbacks, judged the acceptability of a hypothetical copay, and expressed their preferences for future involvement in eConsult decision making and communication. Thematic analysis was used for data interpretation.

Results

One focus group was conducted at each of the 5 sites with a total of 52 participants. Focus groups responded positively to the idea of eConsult, with quicker access to specialty care and convenience identified as key benefits. Approval was particularly high among those with a trusted primary care clinician. Preference for involvement in eConsult decision making and communication varied and enthusiasm about eConsult waned when a hypothetical copay was introduced. Concerns included potential misuse of eConsult and exclusion of the patient's illness narrative in the eConsult exchange.

Conclusions

Primary care patients expressed strong support for eConsult, particularly when used by a trusted primary care clinician, in addition to voicing several concerns. Patient involvement in eConsult outreach and education efforts could help to enhance the model's effectiveness and acceptability.

SUBMITTER: Ackerman SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7227466 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients Assess an eConsult Model's Acceptability at 5 US Academic Medical Centers.

Ackerman Sara L SL Dowdell Kim K Clebak Karl T KT Quinn Meagban M Shipman Scott A SA

Annals of family medicine 20200101 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Electronic consultation (eConsult), involving asynchronous primary care clinician-to-specialist consultation, is being adopted at a growing number of health systems. Most evaluations of eConsult programs have assessed clinical and financial impacts and clinician acceptability. Less attention has been focused on patients' opinions. We set out to understand patient perspectives and preferences for hypothetical eConsult use at 5 US academic medical centers in the process of adopting ...[more]

PMID: 31937531

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcademic Medical Centers (AMCs) must simultaneously serve different purposes: Delivery of high quality healthcare services to patients, as the main mission, supported by other core missions such as academic activities, i.e., researching, teaching and tutoring, while maintaining solvency. This study aims to develop a methodology for constructing models evaluating the academic value provided by AMCs and implementing it at the largest AMC in Israel.MethodsThirty five practiced educators and researchers, academic experts, faculty members and executives, all employed by a metropolitan 1500-bed AMC, were involved in developing academic quality indicators. First, an initial list of AMCs' academic quality indicators was drafted, using a literature review and consulting scholars. Afterwards, additional data and preferences were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews, complemented by a three-round Delphi Panel. Finally, the methodology for constructing a model evaluating the academic value provided by the AMC was developed.ResultsThe composite academic quality indicators methodology consists of nine indicators (relative weight in parentheses): 'Scientific Publications Value' (18.7%), 'Completed Studies' (13.5%), 'Authors Value' (13.0%), 'Residents Quality' (11.3%), 'Competitive Grants Budget' (10.2%), 'Academic Training' (8.7%), 'Academic Positions' (8.3%), 'Number of Studies' (8.3%) and 'Academic Supervision' (8.0%). These indicators were grouped into three core categories: 'Education', 'Research' and 'Publications', having almost the same importance on a scale from zero to one (0-1), i.e., 0.363, 0.320, and 0.317, respectively. The results demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach-alpha range: 0.79-0.86).ConclusionsWe have found a gap in the ability to measure academic value provided by AMCs. The main contribution of this research is the development of methodology for constructing evaluation models for AMCs academic performance. Further studies are needed to further test the validity and reliability of the proposed methodology at other sites.

Project description:Background: As cancer has become a major public health issue in China, fertility preservation remains limited despite the wide application of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) throughout the country. Objective: This study aimed to identify gaps in knowledge and communication as well as referrals in the previous year regarding oncofertility among medical and surgical oncologists and breast cancer patients (BCPs) in Chinese academic settings to target areas of needed improvement. Materials and Methods: A WeChat online questionnaire was designed, distributed, and compared between medical and surgical oncology specialists and reproductive age BCPs in academic teaching settings in Shanghai. Results: Sixty-one medical and surgical oncologists and 125 BCPs responded to the survey. 63.3% of oncologists were familiar with the term "oncofertility" compared to 25.6% of BCPs (p < 0.001). Oncologists were more likely to correctly know the costs associated with treatment (59.0 vs. 32.0%, p < 0.001); patient did not have to be married to undergo oncofertility treatment (50.8 vs. 24.8%, p < 0.001). Both oncologists and BCPs were similarly unlikely to know when patients could utilize cryopreserved tissue in the future (37.7 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.056). While oncologists reported they discussed all oncofertility options (41.0%) and offered psychological counseling (98.4%), significantly fewer BCPs reported receiving information on all options and offered counseling (3.2%, p < 0.001 and 85.6%, p < 0.01). Knowledge of oncofertility was the most important predictor for providing and receiving counseling from oncologists [OR = 6.44 (95% CI = 1.59-26.1, p = 0.009] and BCPs (OR = 3.73 95% CI: = 1.36-10.2, p = 0.011). Overall, 57.4% of oncologists referred <10 patients and none referred more than 25 patients in the past year. Conclusion: Data suggests a significant knowledge gap and ineffective communication/comprehension exists between academic Chinese oncologists and BCPs. Continued education and raised awareness are needed to optimize utilization of oncofertility services in China.

Dataset Information

Patients Assess an eConsult Model's Acceptability at 5 US Academic Medical Centers.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patients Assess an eConsult Model's Acceptability at 5 US Academic Medical Centers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets