Brenton S Bauer1,2, Ai Len Nguyen-Phan1,2,3, Michael K Ong2,4, Boback Ziaeian1,2, Kim-Lien Nguyen1,2. 1. Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, USA. 2. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, USA. 3. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular electronic consultation is a new service line in consultative medicine and enables care without in-person office visits. We aimed to evaluate accessibility and time saved as measures of efficiency, determine the safety of cardiology electronic consultations, and assess satisfaction by responding cardiologists. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach and a modified time-driven, activity-based, costing framework, we retrospectively analysed cardiology electronic consultations. A random subset of 500 electronic consultations referred between 2013-2017 were reviewed. Accessibility was determined based upon increased number of patients served without the need for an in-person clinic visit. To assess safety, medical records were reviewed for emergency room visits or hospital admission at six months from the initial electronic consultation date. Responding cardiologist satisfaction was assessed by voluntary completion of an online survey. RESULTS: The majority of electronic consultations were related to medication advice, clearance for surgery, evaluation of images, or guidance after abnormal testing. Recommendations included echo (10.8%), stress testing (5.0%), other imaging (4.0%) and other subspecialist referrals (3.8%). Electronic consultations were completed within 0.7±0.5 days of the request, with a time to completion of 5-30 min. Over a six-month follow-up, 13.9% of patients had an in-person visit and 2.2% of patients were hospitalised, but none were directly related to the electronic consultation question. Satisfaction by responding cardiologists was modest. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, within a single-payer system, cardiology electronic consultations represent a convenient and safe alternative for providing consultative cardiovascular care, but further optimization is necessary to minimise electronic consultation fatigue experienced by cardiologists.
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular electronic consultation is a new service line in consultative medicine and enables care without in-person office visits. We aimed to evaluate accessibility and time saved as measures of efficiency, determine the safety of cardiology electronic consultations, and assess satisfaction by responding cardiologists. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach and a modified time-driven, activity-based, costing framework, we retrospectively analysed cardiology electronic consultations. A random subset of 500 electronic consultations referred between 2013-2017 were reviewed. Accessibility was determined based upon increased number of patients served without the need for an in-person clinic visit. To assess safety, medical records were reviewed for emergency room visits or hospital admission at six months from the initial electronic consultation date. Responding cardiologist satisfaction was assessed by voluntary completion of an online survey. RESULTS: The majority of electronic consultations were related to medication advice, clearance for surgery, evaluation of images, or guidance after abnormal testing. Recommendations included echo (10.8%), stress testing (5.0%), other imaging (4.0%) and other subspecialist referrals (3.8%). Electronic consultations were completed within 0.7±0.5 days of the request, with a time to completion of 5-30 min. Over a six-month follow-up, 13.9% of patients had an in-person visit and 2.2% of patients were hospitalised, but none were directly related to the electronic consultation question. Satisfaction by responding cardiologists was modest. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, within a single-payer system, cardiology electronic consultations represent a convenient and safe alternative for providing consultative cardiovascular care, but further optimization is necessary to minimise electronic consultation fatigue experienced by cardiologists.
Authors: Jason H Wasfy; Sandhya K Rao; Melissa D Chittle; Kathleen M Gallen; Eric M Isselbacher; Timothy G Ferris Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Varsha G Vimalananda; Gouri Gupte; Siamak M Seraj; Jay Orlander; Dan Berlowitz; Benjamin G Fincke; Steven R Simon Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: Varsha G Vimalananda; Jay D Orlander; Melissa K Afable; B Graeme Fincke; Amanda K Solch; Seppo T Rinne; Eun Ji Kim; Sarah L Cutrona; Dylan D Thomas; Judith L Strymish; Steven R Simon Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Alex Cappitelli; Eric Wenzinger; Olivia C Langa; Laura Nuzzi; Oren Ganor; Carolyn R Rogers-Vizena; Ingrid M Ganske Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-06-20
Authors: Eduardo Bossone; Massimo Majolo; Serena D'Ambrosio; Eliana Raiola; Michele Sparano; Giuseppe Russo; Giuseppe Longo; Maria Triassi; Angelo Rosa Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Carlos Escobar; Beatriz Palacios; Luis Varela; Martín Gutiérrez; Mai Duong; Hungta Chen; Nahila Justo; Javier Cid-Ruzafa; Ignacio Hernández; Phillip R Hunt; Juan F Delgado Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-10-08 Impact factor: 2.908