Key result
Clinician e-consultation linked to ~16% fewer HF admissions and shorter cardiology wait times.
Why the study?
The impact of a clinician-to-clinician e-consultation outpatient care programme on delay time, hospital admissions, and mortality in high-risk heart failure patients with previous hospitalizations was not evaluated.
Does an outpatient care program including clinician-to-clinician e-consultation reduce waiting times, hospital admissions, and mortality in heart failure patients with previous hospitalizations?
Observational (n=6,444)
Does an outpatient care program including clinician-to-clinician e-consultation reduce waiting times, hospital admissions, and mortality in heart failure patients with previous hospitalizations?
Implementation of a clinician-to-clinician e-consultation program significantly reduced waiting times, hospital admissions, and mortality in high-risk heart failure patients with previous hospitalizations.
E-consultation was associated with shorter waits and fewer admissions in high-risk HF patients; leaves open need for randomized trials before practice change.
Aims To evaluate the impact of an outpatient care management programme that includes a clinician-to-clinician e-consultation on delay time in care, hospital admissions, and mortality in a high-risk group of patients with heart failure (HF) and previous episodes of HF hospitalization (HFH). Methods and results We selected 6444 HF patients who visited the cardiology service at least once between 2010 and 2021. Of these, 4851 were attended in e-consult, and 2230 had previous HFH. Using an interrupted time series regression model, we analysed the impact of incorporating e-consult into the healthcare model in the group of patients with HFH and evaluated the elapsed time to cardiology care, HF, cardiovascular (CV), and all-cause hospital admissions and mortality, calculating the incidence relative risk (iRR). In the group of patients with HFH, the introduction of e-consult substantially decreased waiting times to cardiology care (8.6 [8.7] vs. 55.4 [79.9] days, P < 0.001). In that group of patients, after e-consult implantation, hospital admissions for HF were reduced (iRR [95%CI]: 0.837 [0.840–0.833]), 0.900 [0.862–0.949] for CV and 0.699 [0.678–0.726] for all-cause hospitalizations. There was also lower mortality (iRR [95%CI]: 0.715 [0.657–0.798] due to HF, 0.737 [0.764–0.706] for CV and 0.687 [0.652–0.718] for all-cause). The improved outcomes after e-consultation implementation were significantly higher in the group of patients with previous HFH. Conclusion In patients with HFH, an outpatient care programme that includes an e-consult significantly reduced waiting times to cardiology care and was safe, with a lower rate of hospital admissions and mortality in the first year.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
García‐Vega et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Heart failure with previous hospital admissions (n=6,444). Clinician-to-clinician electronic consultation (e-consult) vs. Prior to e-consult implementation was evaluated on Hospital admissions for heart failure (iRR 0.837, 95% CI 0.840-0.833). Clinician-to-clinician e-consultation significantly reduced hospital admissions for heart failure (iRR 0.837) and waiting times to cardiology care (8.6 vs 55.4 days, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: