Christopher Tran1, Douglas Archibald2, Susan Humphrey-Murto1, Clare Liddy2,3, Erin Keely1. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. 2. Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. 3. C.T. Lamont Primary Healthcare Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Poor communication between health professionals can compromise patient safety, yet specialists rarely receive feedback on their written communication. Although worldwide implementation of electronic consultation (eConsult) services is rising rapidly, little is known about the features of effective communication when specialists provide online advice to primary care providers (PCP). To inform efforts to ensure and maintain high-quality communication via eConsult, we aim to identify features of high-quality eConsult advice to incorporate into an assessment tool that can provide specialists with feedback on their correspondence. METHODS: Initial items for the tool were generated by PCPs and specialists using the nominal group technique (NGT). Invited PCPs were above-median eConsult users between July 2016 and June 2017. Specialists were purposively recruited to represent the range of available specialties. Participants individually wrote down items they felt should be included in the tool. A moderator with consensus group expertise then led a round-robin discussion for each item. Items were ranked anonymously and included if highly-ranked by over 70% of participants. RESULTS: Eight PCPs (six family physicians, two nurse practitioners) and three specialists (dermatology, hematology, pediatric orthopedics) produced 49 items that were refined to 14 after group discussion and two rounds of ranking. Highly-ranked items encompassed specific, up-to-date, patient-individualized, and practical advice that the PCP could implement. DISCUSSION: Features of high-quality eConsult correspondence derived from consensus methods highlight similarities and differences between face-to-face consultation letters and eConsult. Our findings could be used to inform feedback and education for eConsult specialists on their advice to PCPs.
INTRODUCTION: Poor communication between health professionals can compromise patient safety, yet specialists rarely receive feedback on their written communication. Although worldwide implementation of electronic consultation (eConsult) services is rising rapidly, little is known about the features of effective communication when specialists provide online advice to primary care providers (PCP). To inform efforts to ensure and maintain high-quality communication via eConsult, we aim to identify features of high-quality eConsult advice to incorporate into an assessment tool that can provide specialists with feedback on their correspondence. METHODS: Initial items for the tool were generated by PCPs and specialists using the nominal group technique (NGT). Invited PCPs were above-median eConsult users between July 2016 and June 2017. Specialists were purposively recruited to represent the range of available specialties. Participants individually wrote down items they felt should be included in the tool. A moderator with consensus group expertise then led a round-robin discussion for each item. Items were ranked anonymously and included if highly-ranked by over 70% of participants. RESULTS: Eight PCPs (six family physicians, two nurse practitioners) and three specialists (dermatology, hematology, pediatric orthopedics) produced 49 items that were refined to 14 after group discussion and two rounds of ranking. Highly-ranked items encompassed specific, up-to-date, patient-individualized, and practical advice that the PCP could implement. DISCUSSION: Features of high-quality eConsult correspondence derived from consensus methods highlight similarities and differences between face-to-face consultation letters and eConsult. Our findings could be used to inform feedback and education for eConsult specialists on their advice to PCPs.
Authors: Daniella Meeker; Mark W Friedberg; Tara K Knight; Jason N Doctor; Dina Zein; Nancy Cayasso-McIntosh; Noah J Goldstein; Craig R Fox; Jeffrey A Linder; Stephen D Persell; Stanley Dea; Paul Giboney; Hal F Yee Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 6.473