ArticleBMJ open2019
Supporting the spread and scale-up of electronic consultation across Canada: cross-sectional analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Family Physician-to-Hospital Specialist Electronic Consultation and Access to Hospital Care: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Person-Centered Integrated Kidney Care Narrative Review: A Model for Reduction of Health Care Carbon Emissions.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2026Review
- Getting better at getting better: Advancing quality and safety in healthcare.Healthcare management forum · 2024Article
- Intramural Health Care Through Video Consultations and the Need for Referrals and Hospital Admissions: Retrospective Quantitative Subanalysis of an Evaluation Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Mapping Theories, Models, and Frameworks to Evaluate Digital Health Interventions: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of BASE eConsult Manitoba: patient perspectives on the use of electronic consultation to improve access to specialty advice in Manitoba.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Teleclinics in rheumatology introduced during the first lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020.Future healthcare journal · 2021Article
- Rethinking screening during and after COVID-19: Should things ever be the same again?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020Article
- Turning Adversity and Deprivation into Improvements in Medicine - The COVID Opportunity.Injury · 2020Article
- Article
- The Provincial Spread and Scale of the Ontario eConsult Service: Evaluation of the First 2 Years.Annals of family medicineArticle
- Examining Differences in Utilization of the Ontario eConsult Service in Rural Versus Urban Settings: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the process of implementing an electronic consultation (eConsult) service and evaluate its impact along key metrics outlined by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.
designCross-sectional study.
settingClinics using eConsult in four provinces across Canada: Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.
participantsAll eConsult cases submitted in four participating provinces were included.
interventionThe eConsult service is a secure online application that allows primary care providers and specialists to communicate regarding a patient's care. We measured the impact using system utilisation data and mandatory close-out surveys completed at the end of each eConsult.
main outcome measuresImplementation progress and impact were examined using the five categories outlined by the RE-AIM framework: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance.
resultsFour provinces provided data from different periods, ranging from 4 years (Alberta) to 10 months (Manitoba). Total cases completed ranged from 96 (Manitoba) to 6885 (Alberta). Newfoundland had the largest menu of available specialties (n=35), while Alberta and Quebec had the smallest (n=22). The most frequently requested groups varied across provinces, with only endocrinology appearing in the top five for all provinces. The average specialist response time ranged from 3 days (Manitoba) to 16.7 days (Alberta). Between 54% (Newfoundland) and 66% (Manitoba) of cases resulted in new or additional information. Primary care providers avoided completing referrals they had originally considered in 36% (Newfoundland) to 53% of cases (Manitoba), while only between 27 % (Quebec) and 29% (Newfoundland) of cases resulted in a referral. In every province, services demonstrated higher rates of usage in their last quarter of data than their first.
conclusionseConsult was successfully implemented in four new provinces across Canada. Implementation strategies and scope varied, but services demonstrated substantial consistency on several key metrics, most notably on whether new information was learnt and impact on decision to refer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.