Milan Patel1,2, Adam J Gadzinski3, Alexander M Bell4, Kara Watts5, Emma Steppe1, Anobel Y Odisho4,6, Claire C Yang3, Chad Ellimoottil1,2. 1. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 2. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 3. Department of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle. 4. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco. 5. Department of Urology, Montefiore Medical Center, New York. 6. Center for Digital Health Innovation, University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An interprofessional consultation (eConsult) is an asynchronous form of telehealth whereby a primary care provider requests electronic consultation with a specialist in place of an in-person consultation. While eConsults have been successfully implemented in many medical specialties, their use in the practice of urology is relatively unknown. METHODS: We included data from four academic institutions: University of Michigan, University of California -San Francisco, University of Washington, and Montefiore Medical Center. We included every urological eConsult performed at each institution from the launch of their respective programs through August 2019. We considered an eConsult "converted" when the participating urologist recommended a full in-person evaluation. We report eConsult conversion rate, response time, completion time, and diagnosis categories. RESULTS: A total of 462 urological eConsults were requested. Of these, 36% were converted to a traditional in-person visit. Among resolved eConsults, with data on provider response time available (n=119),53.8% of eConsults were addressed in less than 1 day; 28.6% in 1 day; 8.4% in 2 days; 3.4% in 3 days; 3.4% in 4 days; 1.7% in 5 days; and 0.8% in ≥6 days. Among resolved eConsults, with data on provider completion time available (n=283), 50.2% were completed in 1-10 minutes; 46.7% in 11-20 minutes; 2.8% in 21-30 minutes; and less than 1% in ≥31 minutes. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that eConsults are an effective avenue for urologists to provide recommendations for many common non-surgical urological conditions and thus avoid a traditional in-person for low-complexity situations. Further investigation into the impact of eConsults on healthcare costs and access to urological care are necessary.
INTRODUCTION: An interprofessional consultation (eConsult) is an asynchronous form of telehealth whereby a primary care provider requests electronic consultation with a specialist in place of an in-person consultation. While eConsults have been successfully implemented in many medical specialties, their use in the practice of urology is relatively unknown. METHODS: We included data from four academic institutions: University of Michigan, University of California -San Francisco, University of Washington, and Montefiore Medical Center. We included every urological eConsult performed at each institution from the launch of their respective programs through August 2019. We considered an eConsult "converted" when the participating urologist recommended a full in-person evaluation. We report eConsult conversion rate, response time, completion time, and diagnosis categories. RESULTS: A total of 462 urological eConsults were requested. Of these, 36% were converted to a traditional in-person visit. Among resolved eConsults, with data on provider response time available (n=119),53.8% of eConsults were addressed in less than 1 day; 28.6% in 1 day; 8.4% in 2 days; 3.4% in 3 days; 3.4% in 4 days; 1.7% in 5 days; and 0.8% in ≥6 days. Among resolved eConsults, with data on provider completion time available (n=283), 50.2% were completed in 1-10 minutes; 46.7% in 11-20 minutes; 2.8% in 21-30 minutes; and less than 1% in ≥31 minutes. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that eConsults are an effective avenue for urologists to provide recommendations for many common non-surgical urological conditions and thus avoid a traditional in-person for low-complexity situations. Further investigation into the impact of eConsults on healthcare costs and access to urological care are necessary.
Authors: Maxim J McKibben; E Will Kirby; Joshua Langston; Mathew C Raynor; Matthew E Nielsen; Angela B Smith; Eric M Wallen; Michael E Woods; Raj S Pruthi Journal: Urology Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: J Nwando Olayiwola; Daren Anderson; Nicole Jepeal; Robert Aseltine; Christopher Pickett; Jun Yan; Ianita Zlateva Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Charles A Mouch; Scott E Regenbogen; Sha'Shonda L Revels; Sandra L Wong; Christy H Lemak; Arden M Morris Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 3.982