Specialist Perspectives on Ontario Provincial Electronic Consultation Services
Abstract
Background: Wait times to access specialist care remain a huge frustration for patients and providers. In Ontario, two electronic consultation (eConsult) services provide prompt, secure access to specialist advice: The Champlain Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation (BASE™) eConsult-managed service, and the Ontario Telemedicine Network (OTN). Introduction: To gain a broader understanding of specialists' perspectives providing eConsult services, we surveyed all specialists actively participating in either platform. Methods: A 34-item web questionnaire focused in four key areas (experience with the service, ideas for provincial expansion, recommendations for enhancements to the service, and specialist demographics) was sent to all specialists who had completed at least one eConsult on either service. Results: There was a 66% (114/172) response rate for BASE and a 47% (61/130) response rate for OTN. The most frequent motivations for participating in eConsult were innovative patient care (58% and 69%), opportunity to reduce wait times (45% and 54%), and opportunity to communicate directly with primary care providers (41% and 51%). Most specialists agreed that eConsult is feasible, results in improved communication between providers, and can be integrated into their clinical workflow without difficulty. Fifty-two percent of OTN specialists and 49% of BASE specialists agreed that they were appropriately compensated for answering eConsults. Discussion: Specialists participate in eConsult services to improve communication with primary care, provide innovative care, and reduce wait times. Conclusions: As eConsult services expand across regions and provinces, the provider perspectives and experiences should be used to evaluate the benefits of eConsult and impact on provider satisfaction.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Champlain BASE eConsult service has grown from a small proof-of-concept to a fully implemented regional service, with a solid body of evidence supporting its ability to improve access to specialist advice, reduce wait times, lower costs, and deliver high levels of patient and provider satisfaction.
“First launched in 2009, this innovative service has grown from a small proof-of-concept to a fully implemented regional service, with a solid body of evidence supporting its ability to improve access to specialist advice, reduce wait times, lower costs, and deliver high levels of patient and provider satisfaction [8–10].”
From Key factors for national spread and scale-up of an eConsult innovation (2020) · cites this paper as [9]
Cites
Veteran, Primary Care Provider, and Specialist Satisfaction With Electronic Consultation
Rodriguez, K. L., Burkitt, K. H., Bayliss, N. K., Skoko, J. E., Switzer, G. E., Zickmund, S. L., Fine, M. J., & Macpherson, D. S. (2015) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/medinform.3725 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Osman, M. A., Schick-Makaroff, K., Thompson, S., Bialy, L., Featherstone, R., Kurzawa, J., Zaidi, D., Okpechi, I., Habib, S., Shojai, S., et al. (2019) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001629 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
“Recent studies published after the completion of our review are consistent with our findings.(99) 100 In a qualitative study evaluating 40 PCPs’ perspectives on eConsult in the USA, the authors reported themes aligned with our findings.”
Self-citationLópez Seguí, F., Vidal-Alaball, J., Sagarra Castro, M., García-Altés, A., & García Cuyàs, F. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/14478 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Key factors for national spread and scale-up of an eConsult innovation
Moroz, I., Archibald, D., Breton, M., Cote-Boileau, E., Crowe, L., Horsley, T., Hyseni, L., Johar, G., Keely, E., Burns, K. K., et al. (2020) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-020-00574-0 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Keely, E., Williams, R., Epstein, G., Afkham, A., & Liddy, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Ontario Telemedicine Network, Toronto, Canada.
- Champlain Local Health Integration Network (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Liddy, Clare
- Venue
- Telemedicine and e-Health
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-10
- ISSN
- 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-3669
- OpenAlex
- W2800679892
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 7.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement
- Champlain Local Health Integration Network
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › 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, access to specialist care, waiting time, specialist perspectives, clinical workflow integration, provider compensation, provider satisfaction, telemedicine
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Insurance, Health, Reimbursement, Interprofessional Relations, Male, Medicine, Middle Aged, Motivation, Ontario, Patient Care Team, Specialization, Waiting Lists, Remote Consultation, Physicians, Primary Care
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.
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