Cargando…

Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records

OBJECTIVES: It is unclear why the use of email consultation is not more widespread in Dutch general practice, particularly because, since 2006, its costs can be reimbursed. To encourage further implementation, it is needed to understand the current use of email consultations. This study aims to unde...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huygens, Martine W J, Swinkels, Ilse C S, Verheij, Robert A, Friele, Roland D, van Schayck, Onno C P, de Witte, Luc P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5781222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29358442
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019233
_version_ 1783294908327526400
author Huygens, Martine W J
Swinkels, Ilse C S
Verheij, Robert A
Friele, Roland D
van Schayck, Onno C P
de Witte, Luc P
author_facet Huygens, Martine W J
Swinkels, Ilse C S
Verheij, Robert A
Friele, Roland D
van Schayck, Onno C P
de Witte, Luc P
author_sort Huygens, Martine W J
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: It is unclear why the use of email consultation is not more widespread in Dutch general practice, particularly because, since 2006, its costs can be reimbursed. To encourage further implementation, it is needed to understand the current use of email consultations. This study aims to understand the use of email consultation by different patient groups, compared with other general practice (GP) consultations. SETTING: For this retrospective observational study, we used Dutch routine electronic health record data obtained from NIVEL Primary Care Database for the years 2010 and 2014. PARTICIPANTS: 200 general practices were included in 2010 (734 122 registered patients) and 434 in 2014 (1 630 386 registered patients). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and percentage of email consultations and patient characteristics (age, gender, neighbourhood socioeconomic status and diagnoses) of email consultation users were investigated and compared with those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. General practice characteristics were also taken into account. RESULTS: 32.0% of the Dutch general practices had at least one email consultation in 2010, rising to 52.8% in 2014. In 2014, only 0.7% of the GP consultations were by email (the others comprised home visits, telephone and face-to-face consultations). Its use highly varied among general practices. Most email consultations were done for psychological (14.7%); endocrine, metabolic and nutritional (10.9%); and circulatory (10.7%) problems. These diagnosis categories appeared less frequently in telephone and face-to-face consultations. Patients who had an email consultation were older than patients who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In contrast, patients with diabetes who had an email consultation were younger. CONCLUSION: Even though email consultation was done in half the general practices in the Netherlands in 2014, the actual use of it is extremely low. Patients who had an email consultation differ from those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In addition, the use of email consultation by patients is dependent on its provision by GPs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5781222
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57812222018-01-31 Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records Huygens, Martine W J Swinkels, Ilse C S Verheij, Robert A Friele, Roland D van Schayck, Onno C P de Witte, Luc P BMJ Open General practice / Family practice OBJECTIVES: It is unclear why the use of email consultation is not more widespread in Dutch general practice, particularly because, since 2006, its costs can be reimbursed. To encourage further implementation, it is needed to understand the current use of email consultations. This study aims to understand the use of email consultation by different patient groups, compared with other general practice (GP) consultations. SETTING: For this retrospective observational study, we used Dutch routine electronic health record data obtained from NIVEL Primary Care Database for the years 2010 and 2014. PARTICIPANTS: 200 general practices were included in 2010 (734 122 registered patients) and 434 in 2014 (1 630 386 registered patients). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and percentage of email consultations and patient characteristics (age, gender, neighbourhood socioeconomic status and diagnoses) of email consultation users were investigated and compared with those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. General practice characteristics were also taken into account. RESULTS: 32.0% of the Dutch general practices had at least one email consultation in 2010, rising to 52.8% in 2014. In 2014, only 0.7% of the GP consultations were by email (the others comprised home visits, telephone and face-to-face consultations). Its use highly varied among general practices. Most email consultations were done for psychological (14.7%); endocrine, metabolic and nutritional (10.9%); and circulatory (10.7%) problems. These diagnosis categories appeared less frequently in telephone and face-to-face consultations. Patients who had an email consultation were older than patients who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In contrast, patients with diabetes who had an email consultation were younger. CONCLUSION: Even though email consultation was done in half the general practices in the Netherlands in 2014, the actual use of it is extremely low. Patients who had an email consultation differ from those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In addition, the use of email consultation by patients is dependent on its provision by GPs. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5781222/ /pubmed/29358442 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019233 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle General practice / Family practice
Huygens, Martine W J
Swinkels, Ilse C S
Verheij, Robert A
Friele, Roland D
van Schayck, Onno C P
de Witte, Luc P
Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records
title Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records
title_full Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records
title_fullStr Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records
title_full_unstemmed Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records
title_short Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records
title_sort understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of dutch electronic health records
topic General practice / Family practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5781222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29358442
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019233
work_keys_str_mv AT huygensmartinewj understandingtheuseofemailconsultationinprimarycareusingaretrospectiveobservationalstudywithdataofdutchelectronichealthrecords
AT swinkelsilsecs understandingtheuseofemailconsultationinprimarycareusingaretrospectiveobservationalstudywithdataofdutchelectronichealthrecords
AT verheijroberta understandingtheuseofemailconsultationinprimarycareusingaretrospectiveobservationalstudywithdataofdutchelectronichealthrecords
AT frielerolandd understandingtheuseofemailconsultationinprimarycareusingaretrospectiveobservationalstudywithdataofdutchelectronichealthrecords
AT vanschayckonnocp understandingtheuseofemailconsultationinprimarycareusingaretrospectiveobservationalstudywithdataofdutchelectronichealthrecords
AT dewittelucp understandingtheuseofemailconsultationinprimarycareusingaretrospectiveobservationalstudywithdataofdutchelectronichealthrecords