The Use of Electronic Consultations in Outpatient Surgery Clinics: Synthesized Narrative Review.

Thomas Payne, Jasmina Kevric, Wanda Stelmach, Henry To
{"title":"The Use of Electronic Consultations in Outpatient Surgery Clinics: Synthesized Narrative Review.","authors":"Thomas Payne, Jasmina Kevric, Wanda Stelmach, Henry To","doi":"10.2196/34661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic consultations (eConsults) are an increasingly used form of telemedicine that allows a nonspecialist clinician to seek specialist advice remotely without direct patient-specialist communication. Surgical clinics may see benefits from such forms of communication but face challenges with the need for intervention planning.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to use the Quadruple Aim Framework to integrate published knowledge of surgical outpatient eConsults with regard to efficacy, safety, limitations, and evolving use in the era of COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched for relevant studies across four databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) on November 4, 2021, with the following inclusion criteria: English language, published in the past 10 years, and data on the outcomes of outpatient surgical eConsults.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 363 studies were screened for eligibility, of which 33 (9.1%) were included. Most of the included studies were from the United States (23/33, 70%) and Canada (7/33, 21%), with a predominant multidisciplinary focus (9/33, 27%). Most were retrospective audits (16/33, 48%), with 15% (5/33) of the studies having a prospective component.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The surgical eConsult studies indicated a possible benefit for population health, promising safety results, enhanced patient and clinician experience, and cost savings compared with the traditional face-to-face surgical referral pathway. Their use appeared to be more favorable in some surgical subspecialties, and the overall efficacy was similar to that of medical subspecialties. Limited data on their long-term safety and use during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified, and this should be the focus of future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":73557,"journal":{"name":"JMIR perioperative medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e34661"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9052035/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR perioperative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/34661","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Electronic consultations (eConsults) are an increasingly used form of telemedicine that allows a nonspecialist clinician to seek specialist advice remotely without direct patient-specialist communication. Surgical clinics may see benefits from such forms of communication but face challenges with the need for intervention planning.

Objective: We aimed to use the Quadruple Aim Framework to integrate published knowledge of surgical outpatient eConsults with regard to efficacy, safety, limitations, and evolving use in the era of COVID-19.

Methods: We systematically searched for relevant studies across four databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science) on November 4, 2021, with the following inclusion criteria: English language, published in the past 10 years, and data on the outcomes of outpatient surgical eConsults.

Results: A total of 363 studies were screened for eligibility, of which 33 (9.1%) were included. Most of the included studies were from the United States (23/33, 70%) and Canada (7/33, 21%), with a predominant multidisciplinary focus (9/33, 27%). Most were retrospective audits (16/33, 48%), with 15% (5/33) of the studies having a prospective component.

Conclusions: The surgical eConsult studies indicated a possible benefit for population health, promising safety results, enhanced patient and clinician experience, and cost savings compared with the traditional face-to-face surgical referral pathway. Their use appeared to be more favorable in some surgical subspecialties, and the overall efficacy was similar to that of medical subspecialties. Limited data on their long-term safety and use during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified, and this should be the focus of future research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子会诊在门诊外科临床中的应用:综合叙述综述
背景电子咨询(eConsults)是一种越来越多使用的远程医疗形式,它允许非专业临床医生在没有直接的患者-专家沟通的情况下远程寻求专家建议。外科诊所可能会从这种沟通形式中受益,但在干预计划的必要性方面面临挑战。目的我们旨在使用四重目标框架整合已发表的外科门诊电子咨询在新冠肺炎时代的疗效、安全性、局限性和不断发展的使用方面的知识。方法我们于2021年11月4日在四个数据库(Ovid MEDLINE、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science)中系统搜索相关研究,纳入标准如下:过去10年发表的英语和门诊外科电子咨询的结果数据。结果共有363项研究被筛选为合格研究,其中33项(9.1%)被纳入。大多数纳入的研究来自美国(23/33,70%)和加拿大(7/33,21%),主要以多学科为重点(9/33,27%)。大多数是回顾性审计(16/33,48%),15%(5/33)的研究具有前瞻性成分。结论与传统的面对面手术转诊途径相比,手术eConsult研究表明,这可能有利于人群健康、有希望的安全性结果、增强患者和临床医生的体验以及节省成本。它们在某些外科亚专业的使用似乎更有利,总体疗效与医学亚专业相似。关于其在新冠肺炎大流行期间的长期安全性和使用的数据有限,这应该是未来研究的重点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Patient-Oriented Implementation Strategy for a Perioperative mHealth Intervention: Feasibility Cohort Study. Development and Validation of a Routine Electronic Health Record-Based Delirium Prediction Model for Surgical Patients Without Dementia: Retrospective Case-Control Study. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Modifying Nitrous Oxide Delivery at Stanford: Observational, Pilot Intervention Study. Implementation of Brief Submaximal Cardiopulmonary Testing in a High-Volume Pre-surgical Evaluation Clinic: A feasibility study. Parental Perspectives on Pediatric Surgical Recovery: Narrative Analysis of Free-Text Comments From a Postoperative Survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1