Comparing virtual consults to traditional consults using an electronic health record: an observational case–control study

Abstract

BackgroundPatients have typically received health care through face-to-face encounters. However, expansion of electronic communication and electronic health records (EHRs) provide alternative means for patient and physicians to interact. Electronic consultations may complement regular healthcare by providing “better, faster, cheaper” processes for diagnosing, treating, and monitoring health conditions. Virtual consultation between physicians may provide a method of streamlining care, potentially saving patients the time and expense of added visits. The purpose of this study was to compare physician usage and patient satisfaction with virtual consultations (VCs) with traditional consultations (TCs) facilitated within an EHR.MethodsWe conducted an observational case–control survey study within Kaiser Permanente, Colorado. A sample of patients who had VCs requested by physicians (N = 270) were matched with patients who had TCs requested by physicians (N = 270), by patient age, gender, reason for the consult, and specialty department. These patients (VC and TC), were invited to participate in a satisfaction survey. In addition, 205 primary care physicians who submitted a VC or TC were surveyed.ResultsDuring the study period, 58,146 VC or TC were requested (TC = 96.3%). Patients who completed a satisfaction survey (267 out of 540 patients, 49.4% response rate) indicated they were satisfied with their care, irrespective of the kind of consult (mean 10-point Likert score of 8.5). 88 of 205 primary care physicians surveyed (42.9%) returned at least one survey; VC and TC survey response rates and consulted departments were comparable (p = 0.13). More TCs than VCs requested transfer of patient care (p = 0.03), assistance with diagnosis (p = 0.04) or initiating treatment (p =0.04). Within 3 weeks of the consultation request, 72.1% of respondents reported receiving information from VCs, compared with 33.9% of the TCs (p < 0.001). Utility of information provided by consultants and satisfaction with consultations did not differ between VCs and TCs.ConclusionsReferring physicians received information from consultants more quickly from VCs compared with TCs, but the value and application of information from both types of consultations were similar. VCs may decrease the need for face-to-face specialty encounters without a decrease in the patient’s perception of care.

Electronic Consultations to Improve the Primary Care-Specialty Care Interface for Cardiology in the Medically Underserved: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

“…[7][8][9][10][13][14][15] There are no published studies, however, showing the effect of an e-consultation program on utilization and clinical outcomes. In addition, most e-consultation programs have been implemented in integrated delivery systems with a shared electronic health record (EHR) or a designated specialty care network.…”

Implementation and Evaluation of the Safety Net Specialty Care Program in the Denver Metropolitan Area

“…11,12 E-consult systems can reduce the need for in-person specialist visits, expand primary care clinicians' scope of work, and improve aspects of care coordination while maintaining informational value. 13,14 Other potential benefits include improved communication between clinicians and patients, and between clinicians facilitating information transfer and aiding decision-making processes, as well as improved care quality, less travel time, and better timeliness of care. 15 Additional research is needed to assess potential cost savings and to fully evaluate the impact on practice workflow.…”

Ambulatory Training for Primary Care General Internists: Innovation With the Affordable Care Act in Mind

“…Electronic, secure, asynchronous consultations (e-consults) between PCGIs and specialists would reduce the cost and inconvenience of separately scheduled consultations in a model that has been used in a variety of specialties. [16][17][18][19][20] The THC and its ACO would benefit financially from the cost savings associated with a greater percentage of care delivered by the highly costeffective THC. 4 Community health centers selected for MSGP development would already have developed a high-performing electronic health record system and have a well-staffed PCMH.…”