Patient and provider perspectives on the design and implementation of an electronic consultation system for kidney care delivery in Canada: a focus group study.

Aminu K Bello, Anita E Molzahn, Louis P Girard, Mohamed A Osman, Ikechi G Okpechi, Jodi Glassford, Stephanie Thompson, Erin Keely, Clare Liddy, Braden Manns, Kailash Jinda, Scott Klarenbach, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Marcello Tonelli
Author Information
  1. Aminu K Bello: Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  2. Anita E Molzahn: Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  3. Louis P Girard: Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  4. Mohamed A Osman: Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  5. Ikechi G Okpechi: Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
  6. Jodi Glassford: Closed Loop Referral Management, eReferral and Alberta Referral Pathways, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  7. Stephanie Thompson: Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  8. Erin Keely: C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
  9. Clare Liddy: Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, The Ottawa Hospital-Riverside Campus, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
  10. Braden Manns: Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  11. Kailash Jinda: Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  12. Scott Klarenbach: Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  13. Brenda Hemmelgarn: Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  14. Marcello Tonelli: Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We assessed stakeholder perceptions on the use of an electronic consultation system (e-Consult) to improve the delivery of kidney care in Alberta. We aim to identify acceptability, barriers and facilitators to the use of an e-Consult system for ambulatory kidney care delivery.
METHODS: This was a qualitative focus group study using a thematic analysis design. Eight focus groups were held in four locations in the province of Alberta, Canada. In total, there were 72 participants in two broad stakeholder categories: patients (including patients' relatives) and providers (including primary care physicians, nephrologists, other care providers and policymakers).
FINDINGS: The e-Consult system was generally acceptable across all stakeholder groups. The key barriers identified were length of time required for referring physicians to complete the e-Consult due to lack of integration with current electronic medical records, and concerns that increased numbers of requests might overwhelm nephrologists and lead to a delayed response or an unsustainable system. The key facilitators identified were potential improvement of care coordination, dissemination of best practice through an educational platform, comprehensive data to make decisions without the need for face-to-face consultation, timely feedback to primary care providers, timeliness/reduced delays for patients' rapid triage and identification of cases needing urgent care and improved access to information to facilitate decision-making in patient care.
CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder perceptions regarding the e-Consult system were favourable, and the key barriers and facilitators identified will be considered in design and implementation of an acceptable and sustainable electronic consultation system for kidney care delivery.

Keywords

References

  1. Int J Med Inform. 2014 Jul;83(7):e1-11 [PMID: 23910896]
  2. Open Med. 2013 Jan 08;7(1):e1-8 [PMID: 23687533]
  3. Lancet. 2010 Apr 10;375(9722):1296-309 [PMID: 20382326]
  4. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57 [PMID: 17872937]
  5. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012 Oct;27(10):3849-55 [PMID: 22759385]
  6. Telemed J E Health. 2008 Jun;14(5):446-53 [PMID: 18578679]
  7. Kidney Int. 2007 Aug;72(3):247-59 [PMID: 17568785]
  8. Implement Sci. 2013 Aug 08;8:88 [PMID: 23927603]
  9. BMC Nephrol. 2013 Aug 29;14:182 [PMID: 23988113]
  10. Lancet. 2012 Jan 14;379(9811):165-80 [PMID: 21840587]
  11. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011;2011:1337-46 [PMID: 22195195]
  12. Health Promot Int. 2012 Jun;27(2):167-76 [PMID: 21398336]
  13. Kidney Int. 2011 Jan;79(2):210-7 [PMID: 20927036]
  14. BMJ. 2009 Jul 08;339:b2395 [PMID: 19586983]
  15. Telemed J E Health. 2013 Dec;19(12):982-90 [PMID: 24073898]
  16. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;150:327-31 [PMID: 19745323]
  17. Qual Health Res. 1998 May;8(3):362-76 [PMID: 10558337]
  18. Inform Prim Care. 2007;15(2):111-9 [PMID: 17877873]
  19. J Health Care Finance. 1997 Summer;23(4):2-11 [PMID: 9211147]
  20. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016 Jul;68(1):41-9 [PMID: 26947216]
  21. Comput Inform Nurs. 2012 May;30(5):251-6 [PMID: 22411415]
  22. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Jul 15;139(2):137-47 [PMID: 12859163]
  23. J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(2):99-104 [PMID: 21163814]
  24. BMC Fam Pract. 2014 Jan 08;15:4 [PMID: 24400676]
  25. Implement Sci. 2011 Oct 21;6:118 [PMID: 22017791]
  26. Telemed J E Health. 2008 Nov;14(9):964-7 [PMID: 19035808]
  27. Rural Remote Health. 2016 Jan-Mar;16(1):3646 [PMID: 26745230]
  28. Br J Health Psychol. 2015 Feb;20(1):36-44 [PMID: 25371039]
  29. BMJ. 2000 Jun 24;320(7251):1729-30 [PMID: 10917708]
  30. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Oct;19(5):e54 [PMID: 20554576]
  31. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jun 27;368(26):2450-3 [PMID: 23802515]
  32. Nefrologia. 2008;28(4):407-12 [PMID: 18662148]
  33. J Eval Clin Pract. 2002 Feb;8(1):31-5 [PMID: 11882099]
  34. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012 Oct;27 Suppl 3:iii19-26 [PMID: 22764188]
  35. Mod Healthc. 2003 Jun 9;33(23):18 [PMID: 12827821]
  36. BMJ. 2000 Jan 1;320(7226):50-2 [PMID: 10617534]
  37. Ann Fam Med. 2013 Mar-Apr;11(2):151-6 [PMID: 23508602]
  38. Addiction. 2000 Nov;95 Suppl 3:S281-308 [PMID: 11132359]
  39. BMJ. 2010 Sep 17;341:c4587 [PMID: 20851841]
  40. JAMA. 2010 Mar 24;303(12):1151-8 [PMID: 20332400]
  41. Transl Behav Med. 2013 Jun 1;3(2):200-210 [PMID: 23750180]

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Alberta
Ambulatory Care
Attitude
Attitude of Health Personnel
Child
Child, Preschool
Electronic Health Records
Female
Focus Groups
Humans
Kidney
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Nephrologists
Nephrology
Patient Satisfaction
Physicians, Primary Care
Qualitative Research
Remote Consultation
Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0caresystemelectronicconsultatione-ConsultkidneydeliverystakeholderbarriersfacilitatorsfocusdesignproviderskeyidentifiedperceptionsuseAlbertagroupstudygroupsincludingpatients'primaryphysiciansnephrologistsacceptableimplementationOBJECTIVES:assessedimproveaimidentifyacceptabilityambulatoryMETHODS:qualitativeusingthematicanalysisEightheldfourlocationsprovinceCanadatotal72participantstwobroadcategories:patientsrelativespolicymakersFINDINGS:generallyacrosslengthtimerequiredreferringcompleteduelackintegrationcurrentmedicalrecordsconcernsincreasednumbersrequestsmightoverwhelmleaddelayedresponseunsustainablepotentialimprovementcoordinationdisseminationbestpracticeeducationalplatformcomprehensivedatamakedecisionswithoutneedface-to-facetimelyfeedbacktimeliness/reduceddelaysrapidtriageidentificationcasesneedingurgentimprovedaccessinformationfacilitatedecision-makingpatientCONCLUSIONS:StakeholderregardingfavourablewillconsideredsustainablePatientproviderperspectivesCanada:CKDqualityrural/remotecommunities

Similar Articles

Cited By