Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32585408›Full record

ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice2020

Inpatient Electronic Consultations (E-consults) in Allergy/Immunology.

S Shahzad Mustafa, Mary L Staicu, Luanna Yang, Tyler Baumeister, Karthik Vadamalai, Allison Ramsey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Penicillin allergy delabeling: Opportunities for implementation and dissemination.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
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

6 authors.

S Shahzad MustafaDivision of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Rochester Regional Health, Rochester, NY; Department of Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Electronic address: shahzad.mustafa@rochesterregional.org.
Mary L StaicuDepartment of Pharmacy, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY.
Luanna YangDivision of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Rochester Regional Health, Rochester, NY.
Tyler BaumeisterDepartment of Pharmacy, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY.
Karthik VadamalaiDepartment of Medicine, Mercy Hospital, Springfield, Mo.
Allison RamseyDivision of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Rochester Regional Health, Rochester, NY; Department of Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Electronic address: allison.ramsey@rochesterregional.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic consultations (e-consults) are asynchronous clinician-to-clinician exchanges within the electronic health record (EHR).

objectiveWe sought to demonstrate the utility of e-consults in allergy/immunology (A/I) inpatient consultations.

methodsInpatients ≥18 years of age for whom an A/I consultation was requested were eligible for an e-consult. An e-consult was completed if considered appropriate by the A/I physician with recommendations made in the EHR. In-person consultation was performed for inpatients if deemed necessary. Likert scale satisfaction data were collected from requesting providers after the e-consultation. Cost was calculated using time-based billing codes plus the cost of penicillin allergy evaluation, if appropriate.

resultsOf the 109 inpatient consults, 78 (71.6%) were completed through an e-consult and 31 (28.4%) were completed by an in-person consult. The most common indication for an inpatient consult was evaluation of penicillin allergy in 73 (67%) patients. The most common reason to complete an in-person consult was the need to complete penicillin skin testing in 17 of the 31 (55%) patients. E-consults were completed in less time than in-person consults (15 minutes, interquartile range [IQR]: 10-15 vs 60 minutes, IQR: 45-60, P < .001) and had a shorter turnaround time (1 hour, IQR: 0.5-2 vs 7 hours, IQR: 3-19, P < .001). Management recommendations were followed at a similar rate regardless of type of consult (88% of e-consults vs 96% of in-person consults, P = .162). A total of 97% of requesting providers reported an "excellent" or "good" impression of e-consults. E-consults were less costly than in-person consults.

conclusionsE-consults have utility in providing inpatient A/I consultation and may have advantages over in-person evaluation, while adequately maintaining provider satisfaction.

Indexed as

Drug HypersensitivityRemote ConsultationElectronic Health RecordsElectronicsHumansInpatientsReferral and ConsultationAllergy/immunologyE-consultElectronic consultationInpatientPenicillin allergy

Identifiers

PMID32585408
PMCPMC7307996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.