Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32198547›Full record

ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2020

A service evaluation of e-triage in the osteoporosis outpatient clinic-an effective tool to improve patient access?

John R Lindsay, G Lawrenson, S English

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Digital health interventions for osteoporosis and post-fragility fracture care.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2022
    Review
  5. Remote Management of Osteoporosis.Current treatment options in rheumatology · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Osteoporosis care amidst the prolonged pandemic.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John R LindsayOsteoporosis Service, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, Stockmans Lane, Belfast, BT9 7JB, UK. johnr.lindsay@belfasttrust.hscni.net.
G LawrensonOsteoporosis Service, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, Stockmans Lane, Belfast, BT9 7JB, UK.
S EnglishOsteoporosis Service, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast Health & Social Care Trust, Stockmans Lane, Belfast, BT9 7JB, UK.
Musgrave Park Hospital · GBBelfast Health and Social Care Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We introduced an electronic triage system into our osteoporosis service to actively manage referral demand in a busy outpatient service. Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of e-triage in supporting alternative management pathways, through use of virtual advice and direct to investigation services, to improve patient access. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis referrals are increasing with awareness of the potential for prevention of fragility fracture and with complex decision making around management with long-term bisphosphonate therapy. We examined whether active triage of referrals might improve referral management processes and patient access to osteoporosis services.

methodsWe implemented electronic triage (e-triage) of referrals to our osteoporosis service using the Northern Ireland electronic health care record. This included the option of 'advice only', direct to investigation with DXA or face-to-face appointments at the consultant-led complex osteoporosis service. We anticipated that there was scope to manage patient flow direct to investigation, or to provide referring clinicians with clinical advice without the need for a face-to-face assessment, at the consultant-led specialist service.

resultsWe reviewed e-triage outcomes of 809 referrals (692 F; 117 M) to osteoporosis specialist services (mean age 65 ± 16.5 years) over a 12-month period. There was a high degree of agreement for the triage category between the referring clinician and specialist services (741/809). 73.3% attended a face-to-face appointment at the consultant-led clinic, while active triage enabled direct to investigation (18.4%) or discharge (8.3%) in the remainder. The mean time between receipt of an electronic referral and e-triage was 3 days over the 12-month period as compared with 2.1 days (median 1.1 days) when annual leave periods were excluded.

conclusionE-triage supports effective referral management in a busy osteoporosis service. Efficiency is limited by reliance on a sole clinician and 5 day working at present. There is scope to further improve systems access through multidisciplinary team working, virtual clinics and future information technology developments.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAmbulatory CareAmbulatory Care FacilitiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleFractures, BoneHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoporosisOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareReferral and ConsultationTelemedicineElectronic health care recordOsteoporosisPatient accessTriage

Identifiers

PMID32198547
PMCPMC7083822
OpenAlexW3012565756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.