Reports From the Field

An eConsults Program to Improve Patient Access to Specialty Care in an Academic Health System

Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management. 2020 May;27(3):115-122 | 10.12788/jcom.0008

References

1. County of Orange, Health Care Agency, Public Health Services. Orange County Health Profile 2013.

2. Coffman JM, Fix M Ko, M. California physician supply and distribution: headed for a drought? California Health Care Foundation, June 2018.

3. Spetz J, Coffman J, Geyn I. California’s primary care workforce: forecasted supply, demand, and pipeline of trainees, 2016-2030. Healthforce Center at the University of California, San Francisco, August 2017.

4. Gandhi TK, Sittig DF, Franklin M, et al. Communication breakdown in the outpatient referral process. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:626-631.

5. McPhee SJ, Lo B, Saika GY, Meltzer R. How good is communication between primary care physicians and subspecialty consultants? Arch Intern Med. 1984;144:1265-1268.

6. Mehrotra A, Forrest CB, Lin CY. Dropping the baton: specialty referrals in the United States. Milbank Q. 2011;89:39-68.

7. Wrenn K, Catschegn S, Cruz M, et al. Analysis of an electronic consultation program at an academic medical centre: Primary care provider questions, specialist responses, and primary care provider actions. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23: 217-224.

8. Gleason N, Prasad PA, Ackerman S, et al. Adoption and impact of an eConsult system in a fee-for-service setting. Healthc (Amst). 2017;5(1-2):40-45.

9. Stoves J, Connolly J, Cheung CK, et al. Electronic consultation as an alternative to hospital referral for patients with chronic kidney disease: a novel application for networked electronic health records to improve the accessibility and efficiency of healthcare. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19: e54.

10. Datta SK, Warshaw EM, Edison KE, et al. Cost and utility analysis of a store-and-forward teledermatology referral system: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:1323-1329.

11. Liddy C, Drosinis P, Deri Armstrong C, et al. What are the cost savings associated with providing access to specialist care through the Champlain BASE eConsult service? A costing evaluation. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010920.

12. Barnett ML, Yee HF Jr, Mehrotra A, Giboney P. Los Angeles safety-net program eConsult system was rapidly adopted and decreased wait times to see specialists. Health Aff. 2017;36:492-499.

13. Malagrino GD, Chaudhry R, Gardner M, et al. A study of 6,000 electronic specialty consultations for person-centered care at The Mayo Clinic. Int J Person Centered Med. 2012;2:458-466.

14. Keely E, Liddy C, Afkham A. Utilization, benefits, and impact of an e-consultation service across diverse specialties and primary care providers. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19:733-738.

15. Scherpbier-de Haan ND, van Gelder VA, Van Weel C, et al. Initial implementation of a web-based consultation process for patients with chronic kidney disease. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:151-156.

16. Palen TE, Price D, Shetterly S, Wallace KB. Comparing virtual consults to traditional consults using an electronic health record: an observational case-control study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:65.

17. Liddy C, Afkham A, Drosinis P, et al. Impact of and satisfaction with a new eConsult service: a mixed methods study of primary care providers. J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28:394-403.

18. Angstman KB, Adamson SC, Furst JW, et al. Provider satisfaction with virtual specialist consultations in a family medicine department. Health Care Manag (Frederick). 2009;28:14-18.

19. McAdams M, Cannavo L, Orlander JD. A medical specialty e-consult program in a VA health care system. Fed Pract. 2014; 31:26–31.

20. Keely E, Williams R, Epstein G, et al. Specialist perspectives on Ontario Provincial electronic consultation services. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25:3-10.

21. Kim-Hwang JE, Chen AH, Bell DS, et al. Evaluating electronic referrals for specialty care at a public hospital. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:1123-1128.

The eConsults workflow build, testing, and launch were completed within 5 months (April 2015; Figure 1). eConsults went live in the 3 initial specialties (endocrinology, cardiology, and rheumatology) that were interested in participating in the first wave of the program. UCI’s eConsults service has subsequently expanded to 17 total specialties (allergy, cardiology, dermatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, gynecology, hematology, hepatology, infectious disease, nephrology, neurology, palliative care, psychiatry, pulmonary, rheumatology, and sports medicine).

Two and half years after the eConsults program was implemented in Allscripts, UCI adopted a new EHR platform, Epic. By this time, the eConsults service had grown into a mature program with greater numbers of PCP users and submitted eConsults (Figure 2). Using our experience with the Allscripts build, our IT team was able to efficiently transition the eConsults service to the new EHR system. In contrast to the “documents-based” eConsult workflows on Allscripts, our IT team utilized an “orders-based” strategy on Epic, which followed a more traditional approach to requesting a consultation. We re-launched the service in Epic within 3 months (February 2018). However, both platforms utilized user-friendly workflows to achieve similar goals, and the program has continued to grow with respect to the number of users and eConsults.

Measurement/Analysis

The impact of the program was assessed by continuously evaluating usage and outcomes. Measures used to track usage included the number of PCP users, the number of submitted eConsult requests per PCP, and the number of requests per specialty. The response time for eConsult requests and the self-reported amount of time spent by specialists on the response were also tracked. Outcome measures included the specialist recommendation (eg, in-office visit, consultation avoided) and physician feedback. Provider satisfaction was primarily obtained by soliciting feedback from individual eConsult users.

Implementation of this eConsults program constituted a quality improvement activity and did not require Institutional Review Board review.