Cited by 159Healthcare Systems and TechnologyTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationElectronic Health Records Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 40 of the 100 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

A Systematic Review of Asynchronous, Provider-to-Provider, Electronic Consultation Services to Improve Access to Specialty Care Available Worldwide

Open access
Liddy, Clare, Moroz, Isabella, Mihan, Ariana, Nawar, Nikhat, Keely, Erin·2019·Telemedicine and e-Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Electronic consultation (eConsult) is an asynchronous electronic communication tool allowing primary care providers to obtain a specialist consultant's expert opinion in a timely manner, thereby offering a potential solution to excessive wait times for specialist care, which remain a serious concern in many countries. INTRODUCTION: Our 2014 review of eConsult services demonstrated feasibility and high acceptability among patients and providers. However, gaps remain in knowledge regarding eConsult's impact on system costs and patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review in May 2017 of English and French literature on OVID Medline, EMBASE, ERIC, and CINAHL databases, examining all studies on eConsult services published since our previous review. The Quadruple Aim Framework was used to synthesize outcomes. Articles reporting on the impact of eConsult on access, patient safety and satisfaction, utilization rates, clinical workflow, and continuing medical education were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1,021 results, 50 of which were included on abstract and received a quality assessment and full text review. Of these, 43 were included in our final analysis. Results demonstrated the worldwide presence of eConsult services in North America and countries beyond, including Brazil, Australia, Spain, and The Netherlands. The breadth of specialty services offered has greatly expanded beyond dermatology and includes cardiology, nephrology, and hematology among others. Overall impact on access measures, acceptability, cost, and provider satisfaction remain positive. There is limited research on population health outcomes of morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of eConsult services has spread both geographically and in terms of specialty services offered. By allowing for a greater population to be served, access to care is being improved; however, long-term impact should continue to be assessed with a focus on patient safety, morbidity, mortality, and cost effectiveness metrics.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/tmj.2018.0005

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

40 of 100 cited sources checked · 25 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 37 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 44
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 60
101 of 101
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Quadruple Aim Framework's four dimensions are appropriate for evaluating eConsult services.

    “The Quadruple Aim Framework was used to synthesize outcomes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The search strategy and databases identified all relevant studies on eConsult published since the previous review.

    “On May 11, 2017 we conducted a search through OVID of Medline (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1947), and ERIC (1965 to April 2017) and through EBSCO of CINAHL.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included studies' reported outcomes are reliable enough to support the review's conclusions despite most being categorized as weak.

    “Due to the fact that most studies were descriptive in nature, the majority (88%) of articles were categorized as ''weak'' based on the quality assessment tool.We did not exclude any articles based on the quality assessment.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Narrative synthesis is an appropriate method for combining the heterogeneous included studies.

    “Using the Quadruple Aim Framework as a guide, we conducted a narrative synthesis of included studies.”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Civilian monthly savings do not match the stated yearly savings

    Minor

    Twelve months at $28,260 per month would total $339,120, rather than the reported $105,400 per year.

    Reported 105400 · recomputed 339120

  • Military monthly savings do not match the stated yearly savings

    Minor

    Twelve months at the stated monthly savings would total $1,690,884, not $467,181. The text does not explain why the monthly estimate and the reported yearly figure differ.

    Reported 467181 · recomputed 1690884

  • Seven services are listed after a claim of six

    Minor

    The passage says six services account for the 29 articles but then names seven: Champlain BASE, TNMG, Mayo Clinic, San Francisco General Hospital, UCSF, MSF, and VHA.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 43 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–159 of 159

Metadata

Authors
Liddy, C., Moroz, I., Mihan, A., Nawar, N., & Keely, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Bruyère (CA)
Corresponding author
Liddy, Clare
Venue
Telemedicine and e-Health
Published
2019-03
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
184-198
ISSN
  • 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3669
OpenAlex
W2808943520
Cited by
151
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
e-consultation, asynchronous communication, access to specialist care, primary care, patient safety, patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, clinical workflow, continuing medical education, Quadruple Aim
MeSH terms
Australia, Brazil, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Netherlands, Quality of Health Care, Spain, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine, Remote Consultation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review