Introduction The Champlain BASE (Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation) eConsultation service was designed to address the limited access to specialist care in Canada, which can lead to long waiting times and, subsequently, negative patient outcomes. Our primary objective was to perform an in-depth analysis of the use, content, and perceived value of haematology electronic consults (eConsults) submitted by primary care providers (PCPs) to the eConsult service. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using descriptive statistics to examine post-eConsult surveys for PCPs and other collected data including PCP designation, time for specialist to complete the eConsult, specialist response time, perceived value of the eConsult by the PCP, and the need for a face-to-face referral following the eConsult. A medically-trained author reviewed all haematology eConsults from April 2011 to January 2015, and categorized them by clinical topic and question type using validated taxonomies. Results Haematology accounted for 436 out of 5601 (7.8%) total eConsults, making it the third most popular service utilized. In 66% of haematology eConsults, a face-to-face consultation was not needed. Anaemia, neutropenia, and hyperferritinemia were the most common clinical queries. Most eConsult question types concerned the management of haematological disorders or the interpretation of laboratory tests. Most eConsults were answered within three days, using less than 15 minutes of the specialists' time. PCPs highly valued the service. Discussion This initiative increases access to haematology care and has the potential to reduce the long waiting times for non-urgent traditional consultation, along with the benefit of cost savings to the healthcare system.
ObjectivePhysicians and medical students are generally poor-self assessors. Research suggests that this inaccuracy in self-assessment differs by gender among medical students whereby females underestimate their performance compared to their male counterparts. However, whether this gender difference in self-assessment is observable in low-stakes scenarios remains unclear. Our study’s objective was to determine whether self-assessment differed between male and female medical students when compared to peer-assessment in a low-stakes objective structured clinical examination.ResultsThirty-three (15 males, 18 females) third-year students participated in a 5-station mock objective structured clinical examination. Trained fourth-year student examiners scored their performance on a 6-point Likert-type global rating scale. Examinees also scored themselves using the same scale. To examine gender differences in medical students’ self-assessment abilities, mean self-assessment global rating scores were compared with peer-assessment global rating scores using an independent samples t test. Overall, female students’ self-assessment scores were significantly lower compared to peer-assessment (p < 0.001), whereas no significant difference was found between self- and peer-assessment scores for male examinees (p = 0.228). This study provides further evidence that underestimation in self-assessment among females is observable even in a low-stakes formative objective structured clinical examination facilitated by fellow medical students.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.