Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33299666›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2020

Synchronous neurology-primary care collaboration in a medical home.

Nathan P Young, David B Burkholder, Lindsey M Philpot, Paul M McKie, Jon O Ebbert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Robot doctors: Teleneurology pros and cons.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nathan P YoungDepartment of Neurology (NPY, DBB); Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine (JOE), Department of Medicine; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (PMM), Department of Medicine; and Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery (LMP, JOE), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
David B BurkholderDepartment of Neurology (NPY, DBB); Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine (JOE), Department of Medicine; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (PMM), Department of Medicine; and Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery (LMP, JOE), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Lindsey M PhilpotDepartment of Neurology (NPY, DBB); Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine (JOE), Department of Medicine; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (PMM), Department of Medicine; and Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery (LMP, JOE), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Paul M McKieDepartment of Neurology (NPY, DBB); Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine (JOE), Department of Medicine; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (PMM), Department of Medicine; and Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery (LMP, JOE), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Jon O EbbertDepartment of Neurology (NPY, DBB); Division of Primary Care Internal Medicine (JOE), Department of Medicine; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (PMM), Department of Medicine; and Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery (LMP, JOE), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSynchronous collaboration as defined by a simultaneous encounter between primary care providers (PCPs), patients, and neurologists may improve access to neurologic expertise, care value, and satisfaction of PCPs and patients. We examined a series of synchronous collaborations and report outcomes, PCP satisfaction, downstream utilization, and illustrative case examples.

methodsWithin an outpatient collaborative primary care-neurology care model, we implemented synchronous video consultations from a central hub to satellite clinics while increasing availability of synchronous telephone and face-to-face collaboration. PCP experience was assessed by a postcollaboration survey. Individual cases were summarized. Clinical and utilization outcomes were assessed by a neurologist immediately after and by follow-up chart review.

resultsA total of 58 total synchronous collaborations were performed: 30 by telephone (52%), 18 face to face (31%), and 10 by video (17%) over 27 clinic half-days. The most frequent outcomes as assessed by the neurologist were reassurance of the PCP (23/58; 40%) and patient (22/59; 38%), and the neurologist changed the treatment plan (23/58; 40%). A subsequent face-to-face consultation was completed in 15% (6/58) of patients initially assessed by telephone or video. Test utilization was avoided in 40% (23/58). Unintended utilization occurred 9% (5/58). Most PCPs were very satisfied with the ease of access, quality of care, and reported high likelihood of subsequent use. PCPs perceived similar or less time spent during synchronous vs asynchronous collaboration and neurologist usually altered the testing (87.8%) and treatment plan (95.2%).

conclusionsSynchronous collaboration between neurologists and PCPs may improve timely access to neurologic expertise, downstream utilization, and PCP satisfaction.

Identifiers

PMID33299666
PMCPMC7717639

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.