Cited by 36Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Teleconsultation Between Patients and Health Care Professionals in the Catalan Primary Care Service: Message Annotation Analysis in a Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

Open access
López Seguí, Francesc, Walsh, Sandra, Solans, Oscar, Adroher Mas, Cristina, Ferraro, Gabriela, García-Altés, Anna, García Cuyàs, Francesc, Salvador Carulla, Luis +2 more·2020·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, telemedicine services have been introduced in the public health care systems of several industrialized countries. In Catalonia, the use of eConsulta, an asynchronous teleconsultation service between primary care professionals and citizens in the public health care system, has already reached 1 million cases. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of eConsulta was growing at a monthly rate of 7%, and the growth has been exponential from March 15, 2020 to the present day. Despite its widespread usage, there is little qualitative evidence describing how this tool is used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to annotate a random sample of teleconsultations from eConsulta, and to evaluate the level of agreement between health care professionals with respect to the annotation. METHODS: Twenty general practitioners retrospectively annotated a random sample of 5382 cases managed by eConsulta according to three aspects: the type of interaction according to 6 author-proposed categories, whether the practitioners believed a face-to-face visit was avoided, and whether they believed the patient would have requested a face-to-face visit had eConsulta not been available. A total of 1217 cases were classified three times by three different professionals to assess the degree of consensus among them. RESULTS: The general practitioners considered that 79.60% (4284/5382) of the teleconsultations resulted in avoiding a face-to-face visit, and considered that 64.96% (3496/5382) of the time, the patient would have made a face-to-face visit in the absence of a service like eConsulta. The most frequent uses were for management of test results (26.77%, 1433/5354), management of repeat prescriptions (24.30%, 1301/5354), and medical enquiries (14.23%, 762/5354). The degree of agreement among professionals as to the annotations was mixed, with the highest consensus demonstrated for the question "Has the online consultation avoided a face-to-face visit?" (3/3 professionals agreed 67.95% of the time, 827/1217), and the lowest consensus for the type of use of the teleconsultation (3/3 professionals agreed 57.60% of the time, 701/1217). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the ability of eConsulta to reduce the number of face-to-face visits for 55% (79% × 65%) to 79% of cases. In comparison to previous research, these results are slightly more pessimistic, although the rates are still high and in line with administrative data proxies, showing that 84% of patients using teleconsultations do not make an in-person appointment in the following 3 months. With respect to the type of consultation performed, our results are similar to the existing literature, thus providing robust support for eConsulta's usage. The mixed degree of consensus among professionals implies that results derived from artificial intelligence tools such as message classification algorithms should be interpreted in light of these shortcomings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/19149

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Resolution of queries was not related to whether the consultation was initiated by the patient or clinician.

    “Fewer patients felt able to provide all relevant information during e-consultation and resolution was not related to whether the consultation was initiated by the patient or clinician.”
  • Fewer patients felt able to provide all relevant information during e-consultation.

    “Fewer patients felt able to provide all relevant information during e-consultation and resolution was not related to whether the consultation was initiated by the patient or clinician.”

    From Effectiveness and safety of asynchronous telemedicine consultations in general practice: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Methods > Annotation Procedure describes general practitioners reviewing consultation messages and recording visit avoidance and consultation type; it does not describe asking patients whether they could provide all relevant information. The Results > Annotation likewise reports practitioners’ assessments, not patients’ views. Searches for patient perceptions and ability to provide information found no passage addressing the claim; the indexed copy provides no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
López Seguí, F., Walsh, S., Solans, O., Adroher Mas, C., Ferraro, G., García-Altés, A., García Cuyàs, F., Salvador Carulla, L., Sagarra Castro, M., & Vidal-Alaball, J.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2020-09-17
Volume
22
Issue
9
Pages
e19149
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3037490214
Cited by
36
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Generalitat de Catalunya
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
teleconsultation, asynchronous telemedicine, primary care, general practitioners, patient-professional interaction, interprofessional agreement, COVID-19 pandemic, Catalonia, test result management, repeat prescriptions, medical inquiry, public health care system
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Artificial Intelligence, Cross-Sectional Studies, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumonia, Viral, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Coronavirus Infections, Remote Consultation, Pandemics

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