Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar 1;27(3):471-479.
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocz185.

Electronic consultations (E-consults) and their outcomes: a systematic review

Affiliations

Electronic consultations (E-consults) and their outcomes: a systematic review

Varsha G Vimalananda et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. .

Abstract

Objective: Electronic consultations (e-consults) are clinician-to-clinician communications that may obviate face-to-face specialist visits. E-consult programs have spread within the US and internationally despite limited data on outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the recent peer-reviewed literature on the effect of e-consults on access, cost, quality, and patient and clinician experience and identified the gaps in existing research on these outcomes.

Materials and methods: We searched 4 databases for empirical studies published between 1/1/2015 and 2/28/2019 that reported on one or more outcomes of interest. Two investigators reviewed titles and abstracts. One investigator abstracted information from each relevant article, and another confirmed the abstraction. We applied the GRADE criteria for the strength of evidence for each outcome.

Results: We found only modest empirical evidence for effectiveness of e-consults on important outcomes. Most studies are observational and within a single health care system, and comprehensive assessments are lacking. For those outcomes that have been reported, findings are generally positive, with mixed results for clinician experience. These findings reassure but also raise concern for publication bias.

Conclusion: Despite stakeholder enthusiasm and encouraging results in the literature to date, more rigorous study designs applied across all outcomes are needed. Policy makers need to know what benefits may be expected in what contexts, so they can define appropriate measures of success and determine how to achieve them.

Keywords: consultation; consultation and referral; remote consultation; systematic review; telemedicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Vimalananda VG, Gupte G, Seraj SM, et al. Electronic consultations (e-consults) to improve access to specialty care: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Telemed Telecare 2015; 21 (6): 323–30. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bakken S. Advancing biomedical and health informatics knowledge through reviews of existing research. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (4): 273–5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Collins JA, Fauser BC.. Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11 (2): 103–4. - PubMed
    1. Bahaadinbeigy K, Yogesan K, Wootton R.. MEDLINE versus EMBASE and CINAHL for telemedicine searches. Telemed J e-Health 2010; 16 (8): 916–9. - PubMed
    1. Liddy C, Rowan MS, Afkham A, Maranger J, Keely E.. Building access to specialist care through e-consultation. Open Med 2013; 7 (1): e1. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types