Chelsea Leonard1, Rachael R Kenney1, Marcie Lee1, Preston Greene2, Melanie Whittington1,3, Susan Kirsh4, P Michael Ho1, George Sayre2, Joseph Simonetti5. 1. Denver/Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Denver/Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacy at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. 4. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio; Veteran Affairs Central Office, Washington, DC. 5. Division of Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) introduced electronic consultation (e-consult) to increase access to specialty care. The objective of this study was to understand perceptions of e-consults that may be relevant to increasing adoption in the VA. METHODS: Deductive and inductive content analysis of semistructured qualitative telephone interviews with VA primary care practitioners (PCPs), specialists, and specialty division chiefs was performed. Participants were identified based on rates of e-consult in 2016 at the individual and facility level within primary care, hematology, cardiology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology. Interview guide development was informed by the Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability (PRISM) framework. RESULTS: We interviewed 35 PCPs and 25 specialists working in 36 facilities. Four themes emerged across both PCPs and specialists: (1) e-consults are best suited for certain types of clinical questions; (2) high-quality e-consults include complete background information from the requesting clinician and clear diagnostic or treatment recommendations from the responding clinician; (3) PCPs and specialists perceive e-consults as a novel opportunity to provide efficient, transparent care; and (4) lack of awareness of e-consults hinders adoption despite obvious benefits. CONCLUSIONS: We identified themes that are informative for further adoption of high-quality e-consults in the VA. Educating PCPs and specialty practitioners about the benefits of e-consults, and providing support, such as lists of specialties available for e-consults at the facility are 2 such practices.
OBJECTIVE: The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) introduced electronic consultation (e-consult) to increase access to specialty care. The objective of this study was to understand perceptions of e-consults that may be relevant to increasing adoption in the VA. METHODS: Deductive and inductive content analysis of semistructured qualitative telephone interviews with VA primary care practitioners (PCPs), specialists, and specialty division chiefs was performed. Participants were identified based on rates of e-consult in 2016 at the individual and facility level within primary care, hematology, cardiology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology. Interview guide development was informed by the Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability (PRISM) framework. RESULTS: We interviewed 35 PCPs and 25 specialists working in 36 facilities. Four themes emerged across both PCPs and specialists: (1) e-consults are best suited for certain types of clinical questions; (2) high-quality e-consults include complete background information from the requesting clinician and clear diagnostic or treatment recommendations from the responding clinician; (3) PCPs and specialists perceive e-consults as a novel opportunity to provide efficient, transparent care; and (4) lack of awareness of e-consults hinders adoption despite obvious benefits. CONCLUSIONS: We identified themes that are informative for further adoption of high-quality e-consults in the VA. Educating PCPs and specialty practitioners about the benefits of e-consults, and providing support, such as lists of specialties available for e-consults at the facility are 2 such practices.
Authors: Justin L Sewell; Katherine S Telischak; Lukejohn W Day; Neil Kirschner; Arlene Weissman Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Judith Strymish; Gouri Gupte; Melissa K Afable; Kalpana Gupta; Eun Ji Kim; Varsha Vimalananda; Steven R Simon; Jay D Orlander Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-04-15 Impact factor: 9.079
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: Priscille Schettini; Kevin P Shah; Colin P O'Leary; Malhar P Patel; John B Anderson; Alex H Cho; Andrea L Long; Hayden B Bosworth; C Blake Cameron Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: David R Saxon; Peter J Kaboli; Bjarni Haraldsson; Christopher Wilson; Michael Ohl; Matthew R Augustine Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Melanie D Whittington; P Michael Ho; Susan R Kirsh; Rachael R Kenney; Jeffrey Todd-Stenberg; David H Au; Joseph Simonetti Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Leah M Haverhals; George Sayre; Christian D Helfrich; Catherine Battaglia; David Aron; Lauren D Stevenson; Susan Kirsh; Michael Ho; Julie Lowery Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Susan Kirsh; Evan Carey; Dacid C Aron; Omar Cardenas; Glenn Graham; Rajiv Jain; David H Au; Chin-Lin Tseng; Heather Franklin; P Michael Ho Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 2.229