ArticleOpen access emergency medicine : OAEM2026
Emergency Department Clinician Perspectives on an EMR-Adjacent Microsoft Teams Consultation Workflow.
Article in Open access emergency medicine : OAEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Communication failures in the emergency department (ED) can delay consultations and worsen crowding. Hospitals now use phone-based systems, EMR-integrated secure chat, and EMR-adjacent messaging platforms for consultant communication, but few studies describe ED clinician experience with these workflows. Objective: To describe ED clinicians' perceived acceptability of, and experience with, an EMR-adjacent Microsoft Teams-based consultation workflow used alongside a telephone-based consultation pathway. Methods: We conducted a single-center post-implementation survey of clinicians who used a Microsoft Teams consultation workflow in an academic ED. The primary analysis focused on ED clinician responses; consulting clinician responses were reported descriptively because of the low estimated non-ED response rate. Results: Of 121 respondents, 82 were ED clinicians, and 39 were consulting clinicians. Among ED clinicians, 78.0% reported high acceptability of the Teams consultation workflow, 85.4% perceived improvements in the workflow, and 89.0% perceived a positive impact on patient care. Delays remained common, with 24.4% of ED clinicians reporting that responses were often delayed. Consulting clinician responses are reported descriptively only because of the low estimated non-ED response rate. Conclusion: ED clinicians reported high perceived acceptability of an EMR-adjacent Microsoft Teams consultation workflow used alongside a telephone-based consultation pathway. These results reflect post-implementation clinician perceptions and do not establish improved consultation timeliness, patient flow, or clinical outcomes.
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.