scholarly journals The impact of asynchronous e-visits on clinical outcomes and healthcare delivery: A systematic review (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver T. Nguyen ◽  
Amir Alishahi Tabriz ◽  
Jinhai Huo ◽  
Karim Hanna ◽  
Christopher M. Shea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Healthcare Quality ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Infection Management ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND E-visits involve asynchronous communication between providers and patients through a secure web-based platform, such as a patient portal, to elicit symptoms and determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. E-visits are now reimbursable through Medicare due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The state of the evidence regarding e-visits, such as the impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare delivery, is unclear. OBJECTIVE To address this gap, this systematic review examines how e-visits have impacted clinical outcomes and healthcare quality, access, utilization, and costs. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from January 2000 through October 2020 for peer-reviewed studies that assessed e-visits’ impact on clinical and healthcare delivery outcomes. RESULTS Out of 1,858 papers, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. E-visit usage was associated with improved or comparable clinical outcomes, especially for chronic disease management (e.g., diabetes care, blood pressure management). The impact on quality of care varied across conditions. Quality of care was equivalent or better for chronic conditions but variable quality was observed in infection management (e.g., appropriate antibiotic prescribing). Similarly, the impact on healthcare utilization varied across conditions (e.g., lower utilization for dermatology) but mixed impact in primary care. Healthcare costs were lower for e-visits for a wide-range of conditions (e.g., dermatology and acute visits). No studies examined the impact of e-visits on healthcare access. Available studies are observational in nature and it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about effectiveness or impact on care delivery. CONCLUSIONS Overall, the evidence suggests e-visits may provide comparable clinical outcomes to in-person care and reduce healthcare costs for certain healthcare conditions. At the same time, there is mixed evidence on healthcare quality, especially regarding infection management (e.g., sinusitis, urinary tract infections, conjunctivitis). Further studies are needed to test implementation strategies that might improve delivery (e.g., clinical decision support for antibiotic prescribing) and to assess which conditions are amenable to e-visits and which conditions require in-person or face-to-face care (e.g., virtual visit). CLINICALTRIAL not applicable

scholarly journals Inequalities in general practice remote consultations: A systematic review

BJGP Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. BJGPO.2021.0040
Author(s):  
Ruth Parker ◽  
Emma Figures ◽  
Charlotte Paddison ◽  
James Matheson ◽  
David Blane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Remote Consultations

BackgroundCOVID-19 has led to rapid and widespread use of remote consultations in general practice, but the health inequalities impact remains unknown.AimTo explore the impact of remote consultations in general practice compared to face-to-face consultations on utilisation and clinical outcomes across socio-economic and disadvantaged groups.Design & settingSystematic reviewMethodWe undertook an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to June 2020. We included studies which compared remote consultations to face-to-face consultations in primary care and reported outcomes by PROGRESS Plus criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. Data was synthesised narratively.ResultsBased on 13 studies, exploring telephone and internet-based consultations, we found that telephone consultations were used by younger working age people, the very old and non-immigrants, with internet-based consultations more likely to be used by younger people. Women consistently used more remote forms of consulting than men. Socio-economic and ethnicity findings were mixed, with weak evidence that patients from more affluent areas were more likely to use internet-based communication. Remote consultations appeared to help patients with opioid dependence remain engaged with primary care. No studies reported on the impact on quality of care or clinical outcomes.ConclusionRemote consultations in general practice are likely to be used more by younger working people, non-immigrants, the elderly and women, with internet-based consultations more by younger, affluent and educated groups. Wide-spread use of remote consultations should be treated with caution until the inequalities impact on clinical outcomes and quality of care is known.

scholarly journals The Effect of Higher Level Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Oncology Care: A Systematic Review

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1032 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sosse E. Klarenbeek ◽  
Harm H.A. Weekenstroo ◽  
J.P. Michiel Sedelaar ◽  
Jurgen J. Fütterer ◽  
Mathias Prokop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Process Outcomes ◽  
The Impact

Background: To deal with complexity in cancer care, computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are developed to support quality of care and improve decision-making. We performed a systematic review to explore the value of CDSSs using automated clinical guidelines, Artificial Intelligence, datamining or statistical methods (higher level CDSSs) on the quality of care in oncology. Materials and Methods: The search strategy combined synonyms for ‘CDSS’ and ‘cancer.’ Pubmed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Association of Computing Machinery digital library and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 2000 to December 2019. Included studies evaluated the impact of higher level CDSSs on process outcomes, guideline adherence and clinical outcomes. Results: 11,397 studies were selected for screening, after which 61 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Finally, nine studies were included in the final analysis with a total population size of 7985 patients. Types of cancer included breast cancer (63.1%), lung cancer (27.8%), prostate cancer (4.1%), colorectal cancer (3.1%) and other cancer types (1.9%). The included studies demonstrated significant improvements of higher level CDSSs on process outcomes and guideline adherence across diverse settings in oncology. No significant differences were reported for clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Higher level CDSSs seem to improve process outcomes and guidelines adherence but not clinical outcomes. It should be noticed that the included studies primarily focused on breast and lung cancer. To further explore the impact of higher level CDSSs on quality of care, high-quality research is required.

The impact of antibiotic allergy labels on antibiotic exposure, clinical outcomes, and healthcare costs: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Nathan M. Krah ◽  
Trahern W. Jones ◽  
Joanita Lake ◽  
Adam L. Hersh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Economic Outcomes ◽  
Inpatient Setting ◽  
Antibiotic Exposure ◽  
Antibiotic Allergy ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective: A growing body of evidence suggests that antibiotic allergy labels as documented in medical records are a risk factor for poor clinical outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine how antibiotic allergy labels influence 3 domains: antibiotic use and exposure, clinical outcomes, and healthcare-related costs. Design: We performed a systematic review to identify studies reporting outcomes in patients with antibiotic allergy labels compared to nonallergic counterparts. The search included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EBSCO, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and abstracted data. Studies were graded using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Study outcomes included antibiotic use, clinical outcomes, and economic outcomes. Results: In total, 41 studies met our criteria for inclusion. These studies varied in medical specialty, patient population, healthcare delivery system, and design, but most were conducted among adults age >18 years (85%) in the inpatient setting (82.5%). Among 34 studies examining antibiotic exposure, 32 (94%) found that patients with antibiotic allergy labels received more broad-spectrum antibiotics. Moreover, 31 studies examined clinical outcomes such as length of hospitalization, ICU admission, hospital readmission, multidrug-resistant or opportunistic infection, or mortality, and 27 (87%) found that allergy-labeled patients had at least 1 negative outcome. Of 9 studies examining healthcare costs, 7 (78%) found that allergy-labeled patients incurred significantly higher drug or hospital-related costs. Conclusions: Antibiotic allergy labels have negative effects on antibiotic use, clinical outcomes, and economic outcomes in a variety of clinical settings and populations.

scholarly journals Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals’ performance: A systematic review (2000–2020)

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0247297
Author(s):  
Khic-Houy Prang ◽  
Roxanne Maritz ◽  
Hana Sabanovic ◽  
David Dunt ◽  
Margaret Kelaher
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Consumer Choice ◽  
Structural Characteristics ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
The Impact

Background Public performance reporting (PPR) of physician and hospital data aims to improve health outcomes by promoting quality improvement and informing consumer choice. However, previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent effects of PPR, potentially due to the various PPR characteristics examined. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the impact and mechanisms (selection and change), by which PPR exerts its influence. Methods Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved from five databases and eight reviews. Data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted. Studies were categorised into: user and provider responses to PPR and impact of PPR on quality of care. Results Forty-five studies were identified: 24 on user and provider responses to PPR, 14 on impact of PPR on quality of care, and seven on both. Most of the studies reported positive effects of PPR on the selection of providers by patients, purchasers and providers, quality improvement activities in primary care clinics and hospitals, clinical outcomes and patient experiences. Conclusions The findings provide moderate level of evidence to support the role of PPR in stimulating quality improvement activities, informing consumer choice and improving clinical outcomes. There was some evidence to demonstrate a relationship between PPR and patient experience. The effects of PPR varied across clinical areas which may be related to the type of indicators, level of data reported and the mode of dissemination. It is important to ensure that the design and implementation of PPR considered the perspectives of different users and the health system in which PPR operates in. There is a need to account for factors such as the structural characteristics and culture of the hospitals that could influence the uptake of PPR.

Innovating in healthcare delivery: a systematic review and a preference-based framework of patient and provider needs

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 92-100
Author(s):  
Joseph S Salama ◽  
Alex Lee ◽  
Ashkan Afshin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Unmet Needs ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Process Of Care ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reducing Costs ◽  
Healthcare Innovation

Healthcare innovation is becoming a popular but poorly defined option for those who are seeking new ways of reducing costs while also improving the quality of care. The process of innovating in healthcare delivery can be improved by identifying and understanding the unmet needs of patients and providers. We conducted two systematic literature reviews to identify the needs of these stakeholders throughout healthcare delivery and developed a conceptual framework for innovating in healthcare. Our results reveal tension between patients’ and providers’ preferences across three major categories—treatment and outcomes, process of care and structure of care. Therefore, innovating in healthcare may be better understood as addressing the unmet needs of each stakeholder by easing or eliminating tensions between stakeholders. This conceptual framework may serve as a useful instrument for health policymakers, payers and innovators to alike make better decisions as they invest in healthcare innovations.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of UK provider financial incentives on quality of care: a systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (664) ◽  
pp. e800-e815 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rishi Mandavia ◽  
Nishchay Mehta ◽  
Anne Schilder ◽  
Elias Mossialos
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Quality Of Health Care ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Healthcare Quality ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
The Uk

BackgroundProvider financial incentives are being increasingly adopted to help improve standards of care while promoting efficiency.AimTo review the UK evidence on whether provider financial incentives are an effective way of improving the quality of health care.Design and settingSystematic review of UK evidence, undertaken in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations.MethodMEDLINE and Embase databases were searched in August 2016. Original articles that assessed the relationship between UK provider financial incentives and a quantitative measure of quality of health care were included. Studies showing improvement for all measures of quality of care were defined as ‘positive’, those that were ‘intermediate’ showed improvement in some measures, and those classified as ‘negative’ showed a worsening of measures. Studies showing no effect were documented as such. Quality was assessed using the Downs and Black quality checklist.ResultsOf the 232 published articles identified by the systematic search, 28 were included. Of these, nine reported positive effects of incentives on quality of care, 16 reported intermediate effects, two reported no effect, and one reported a negative effect. Quality assessment scores for included articles ranged from 15 to 19, out of a maximum of 22 points.ConclusionThe effects of UK provider financial incentives on healthcare quality are unclear. Owing to this uncertainty and their significant costs, use of them may be counterproductive to their goal of improving healthcare quality and efficiency. UK policymakers should be cautious when implementing these incentives — if used, they should be subject to careful long-term monitoring and evaluation. Further research is needed to assess whether provider financial incentives represent a cost-effective intervention to improve the quality of care delivered in the UK.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient–Physician Non-English Language Concordance on Quality of Care and Outcomes

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 1591-1606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Diamond ◽  
Karen Izquierdo ◽  
Dana Canfield ◽  
Konstantina Matsoukas ◽  
Francesca Gany
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
English Language ◽  
Language Concordance ◽  
The Impact
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document