初级保健和内科之间的电子会诊:实施、可及性、益处和影响

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Revista clinica espanola Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.rce.2024.05.003
{"title":"初级保健和内科之间的电子会诊:实施、可及性、益处和影响","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.rce.2024.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This work aims to evaluate whether electronic consultations (e-consults) are a clinically useful, safe tool for assessing patients between primary care and internal medicine.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This is a retrospective cohort study of all e-consults ordered by the Primary Care Department to the Internal Medicine Department between September 2019 and December 2023. The results of initial consultations, emergency department visits and subsequent admissions, and survival were assessed and complaints and claims filed were reviewed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 11,434 e-consults were recorded (55.4% women) with a mean age of 62.1 (SD19.4) years and a wide range (15 to 102 years). The mean response time was 2.55 (SD 1.6) days. As a result of the e-consults, 5,645 patients (49.4%) were given an in-person appointment. For the remaining 5,789 (50.6%), a written response was provided. Among those given appointments, the time between the response and in-person appointment was less than five days (95% of cases). Compared to those not given appointments, in-person appointments were older (<em>p</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.0001), visited the emergency department more times (one month: <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.04; three months: <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.001), were admitted to the hospital more times (one month: <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0001; three months: <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0001), and had higher mortality at one year (12.7% vs. 9.8% <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0001). On the Cox analysis, only in-person appointments (RR<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1.11; <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.04) and age (RR<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1.09; <em>p</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.01) were independent factors of mortality. No complaints or claims of any kind were registered.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>These data suggest that e-consults are a clinically useful, safe tool for assessing patients referred from primary care to internal medicine departments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21223,"journal":{"name":"Revista clinica espanola","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"E-consulta entre Atención Primaria y Medicina Interna: implementación, accesibilidad, beneficios e implicaciones\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rce.2024.05.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This work aims to evaluate whether electronic consultations (e-consults) are a clinically useful, safe tool for assessing patients between primary care and internal medicine.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This is a retrospective cohort study of all e-consults ordered by the Primary Care Department to the Internal Medicine Department between September 2019 and December 2023. The results of initial consultations, emergency department visits and subsequent admissions, and survival were assessed and complaints and claims filed were reviewed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 11,434 e-consults were recorded (55.4% women) with a mean age of 62.1 (SD19.4) years and a wide range (15 to 102 years). The mean response time was 2.55 (SD 1.6) days. As a result of the e-consults, 5,645 patients (49.4%) were given an in-person appointment. For the remaining 5,789 (50.6%), a written response was provided. Among those given appointments, the time between the response and in-person appointment was less than five days (95% of cases). Compared to those not given appointments, in-person appointments were older (<em>p</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.0001), visited the emergency department more times (one month: <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.04; three months: <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.001), were admitted to the hospital more times (one month: <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0001; three months: <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0001), and had higher mortality at one year (12.7% vs. 9.8% <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.0001). On the Cox analysis, only in-person appointments (RR<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1.11; <em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.04) and age (RR<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->1.09; <em>p</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.01) were independent factors of mortality. No complaints or claims of any kind were registered.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>These data suggest that e-consults are a clinically useful, safe tool for assessing patients referred from primary care to internal medicine departments.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21223,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista clinica espanola\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista clinica espanola\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014256524001061\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista clinica espanola","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014256524001061","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的这项工作旨在评估电子会诊(e-consults)是否是在初级保健和内科之间评估患者的一种临床有用、安全的工具。方法这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象是2019年9月至2023年12月期间初级保健科向内科下达的所有电子会诊。结果共记录了 11,434 次电子会诊(55.4% 为女性),平均年龄为 62.1 岁(SD19.4),年龄跨度较大(15 至 102 岁)。平均回复时间为 2.55 天(标准差 1.6 天)。通过电子会诊,5,645 名患者(49.4%)获得了面诊预约。其余 5789 名患者(50.6%)获得了书面回复。在获得预约的患者中,从回复到面诊之间的时间不到五天(95% 的病例)。与未获得预约的患者相比,亲自预约的患者年龄更大(p <0.0001),去急诊科就诊的次数更多(一个月:p = 0.04;三个月:p = 0.001),入院治疗的次数更多(一个月:p = 0.0001;三个月:p = 0.0001),一年后的死亡率更高(12.7% 对 9.8% p = 0.0001)。在 Cox 分析中,只有亲自预约(RR = 1.11;P = 0.04)和年龄(RR = 1.09;P < 0.01)是影响死亡率的独立因素。结论这些数据表明,电子会诊是一种临床实用、安全的工具,可用于评估从初级保健转诊到内科的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
E-consulta entre Atención Primaria y Medicina Interna: implementación, accesibilidad, beneficios e implicaciones

Aim

This work aims to evaluate whether electronic consultations (e-consults) are a clinically useful, safe tool for assessing patients between primary care and internal medicine.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of all e-consults ordered by the Primary Care Department to the Internal Medicine Department between September 2019 and December 2023. The results of initial consultations, emergency department visits and subsequent admissions, and survival were assessed and complaints and claims filed were reviewed.

Results

A total of 11,434 e-consults were recorded (55.4% women) with a mean age of 62.1 (SD19.4) years and a wide range (15 to 102 years). The mean response time was 2.55 (SD 1.6) days. As a result of the e-consults, 5,645 patients (49.4%) were given an in-person appointment. For the remaining 5,789 (50.6%), a written response was provided. Among those given appointments, the time between the response and in-person appointment was less than five days (95% of cases). Compared to those not given appointments, in-person appointments were older (p < 0.0001), visited the emergency department more times (one month: p = 0.04; three months: p = 0.001), were admitted to the hospital more times (one month: p = 0.0001; three months: p = 0.0001), and had higher mortality at one year (12.7% vs. 9.8% p = 0.0001). On the Cox analysis, only in-person appointments (RR = 1.11; p = 0.04) and age (RR = 1.09; p < 0.01) were independent factors of mortality. No complaints or claims of any kind were registered.

Conclusions

These data suggest that e-consults are a clinically useful, safe tool for assessing patients referred from primary care to internal medicine departments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Revista clinica espanola
Revista clinica espanola 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.90%
发文量
73
审稿时长
28 days
期刊介绍: Revista Clínica Española published its first issue in 1940 and is the body of expression of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine (SEMI). The journal fully endorses the goals of updating knowledge and facilitating the acquisition of key developments in internal medicine applied to clinical practice. Revista Clínica Española is subject to a thorough double blind review of the received articles written in Spanish or English. Nine issues are published each year, including mostly originals, reviews and consensus documents.
期刊最新文献
Espectro etiológico y desafíos diagnósticos de la fiebre de corta duración en Bengala Occidental (India): un estudio transversal en un centro de atención terciaria Respuesta a la carta al Director sobre «Prevalencia de anticuerpos neutralizantes frente al SARS-CoV-2 inducidos tras 2 dosis de vacuna BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) en trabajadores sanitarios» Tratamiento anticoagulante oral en la fibrilación auricular: AFIRMA, el estudio de vida real realizado mediante procesamiento de lenguaje natural y aprendizaje automático Prevalencia y características de la anemia en personas con diabetes mellitus de 50 años o más en un área sanitaria de Cádiz (España) E-consulta entre Atención Primaria y Medicina Interna: implementación, accesibilidad, beneficios e implicaciones
×
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