| Literature DB >> 32687477 |
Francesc López Seguí1,2, Sandra Walsh3, Oscar Solans4, Cristina Adroher Mas5, Gabriela Ferraro6, Anna García-Altés7, Francesc García Cuyàs5, Luis Salvador Carulla8, Marta Sagarra Castro9, Josep Vidal-Alaball10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, telemedicine services have been introduced in the public health care systems of several industrialized countries. In Catalonia, the use of eConsulta, an asynchronous teleconsultation service between primary care professionals and citizens in the public health care system, has already reached 1 million cases. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of eConsulta was growing at a monthly rate of 7%, and the growth has been exponential from March 15, 2020 to the present day. Despite its widespread usage, there is little qualitative evidence describing how this tool is used.Entities:
Keywords: face-to-face visits; message annotation; primary care; remote consultation; teleconsultation
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32687477 PMCID: PMC7530682 DOI: 10.2196/19149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Numbers of messages and conversations (left axis), and patients and health care professional users (right axis) of eConsulta.
Figure 2Patients per professional (left axis), messages per conversation and conversation per patient (right axis) in eConsulta.
Figure 3Age profile of patient users of the teleconsultation service, according to gender.
Figure 4Days until face-to-face visit for eConsultations that resulted in a face-to-face visit in the following 90 days (accumulated density).
Results of the annotation.
| Variable | n (%) | |
|
|
| |
|
| Yes | 4284 (79.60) |
|
| No | 740 (13.75) |
|
| Not sure | 360 (6.69) |
|
|
| |
|
| Yes | 3496 (64.96) |
|
| No | 1626 (30.21) |
|
| Not sure | 260 (4.83) |
|
|
| |
|
| Management of test results | 1433 (26.77) |
|
| Temporary disability management | 299 (5.58) |
|
| Management of visits/referrals | 536 (10.01) |
|
| Repeat prescriptions | 1301 (24.30) |
|
| Medical enquiries | 762 (14.23) |
|
| Other | 1023 (19.11) |
Relationship between the type of consultation and the two other variables recorded.
| Type of teleconsultation | N | Has the online consultation avoided a face-to-face visit? n (%) | In the absence of a service like eConsulta, would the patient have had a face-to-face consultation? n (%) | |||||
|
|
| Yes | No | Not sure | Yes | No | Not sure | |
| Management of test results | 1433 | 1319 (92.04) | 71 (4.95) | 43 (3.00) | 1105 (77.11) | 323 (22.54) | 5 (0.35) | |
| Temporary disability management | 299 | 265 (88.6) | 27 (9.0) | 7 (2.3) | 217 (72.6) | 82 (27.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Management of visits/referrals | 536 | 397 (74.1) | 120 (22.4) | 19 (3.5) | 341 (63.6) | 187 (34.9) | 8 (1.5) | |
| Repeat prescriptions | 1301 | 1223 (94.00) | 50 (3.84) | 28 (2.15) | 988 (75.94) | 311 (23.90) | 2 (0.15) | |
| Medical enquiries | 762 | 586 (76.9) | 146 (19.2) | 30 (3.9) | 520 (68.24) | 226 (29.7) | 16 (2.1) | |
| Other | 834a | 468 (56.1) | 315 (37.8) | 51 (6.1) | 311 (37.3) | 488 (58.5) | 35 (4.2) | |
aAlthough the total N of the “Other” category was 1023, only 834 observations were classified into the subcategories for these two variables.
Consensus among three annotators for annotated conversations (N=1217).
| Annotated variables | Level 1 (3/3 agreement), n (%) | Level 2 (2/3 agreement), n (%) | Level 3 (no agreement), n (%) |
| Has the online consultation avoided a face-to-face visit? (Yes/No/Not sure) | 827 (67.95) | 356 (29.25) | 34 (2.79) |
| In the absence of a service like eConsulta, would the patient have had a face-to-face consultation? (Yes/No/Not sure) | 477 (39.19) | 713 (58.59) | 27 (2.21) |
| Type of teleconsultation (Categories 1-6a/Not sure) | 701 (57.60) | 438 (35.99) | 78 (6.41) |
aSee Multimedia Appendix 1 for category numbers and descriptions.