A Unique Way to Axe the Fax – Using Business Automation Workflow to expedite eReferral adoption, bridging eReferral and Fax: Pilot Study (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> It is estimated that 88% of Ontario physicians still use fax technology to share patient information. Transitioning to eReferral has been shown to have numerous benefits, but the major barrier to eReferral adoption is the need to have both sending/receiving clinicians on the same platform to enable information sharing. The traditional onboarding process takes time and effort. An innovative method is required to improve eReferral adoption by bridging the gap between eReferral senders and referral receivers still using fax. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> To explore the technological feasibility of leveraging a Business Automation Workflow (BAW) platform to connect the digital (eReferral) and non-digital referral platform (Fax), enabling eReferral senders to use eReferral to send referrals to clinicians using Fax, with the goal of improving clinician experience. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> An eReferral via eFax solution was developed and evaluated on the BAW platform to connect the eReferral platform and the clinicians using fax. A selected number of fax receivers were identified and enabled on the eReferral platform as eFax receivers. Sending clinicians initiated eFaxes through the familiar eReferral workflow, with eFaxes transmitted to BAW and delivered to the target receiver via fax. Retry and reminder logic were built to improve the user experience. If the eFax failed after all the retries, a message was sent to the sending clinician through the eReferral platform explaining the failure reason. The appointment information was entered into the eReferral platform by the sending clinicians to trigger patient email notifications. Surveys and focused interviews were conducted to collect clinicians’ feedback. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> From May 2022 to December 2023, 224 eFax receivers were enabled on the platform, processing 4,504 eFaxes for 4,132 unique patients and 843 unique senders across the province. Nearly 70% of patients received email notifications, with 19% of appointment details entered in the eReferral platform. On average, eFax referrals contained 5.6 pages, with a minimal 0.7% exceeding 30 pages. Initially, fax service retries were disabled to observe delivery error rates. This resulted in a 37.7% fax failure. However, after implementing new retry logic in March 2023, the failure rate dropped significantly to 9.9% and 98.7% of eFaxes were successfully delivered after automatic retries. Clinician feedback revealed a positive impact on sending clinicians' experience, maintaining their familiar workflow while accommodating fax-reliant receivers who can gradually transition to the new platform at their own pace. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> This project demonstrates the potential of the BAW platform to bridge the gap between fax and eReferral systems. It minimizes disruption for sending clinicians while allowing receiving clinicians using fax to incrementally adopt the new platform. This technology can significantly expedite eReferral adoption by reducing reliance on the adoption of the eReferral by receiving clinics, ultimately enhancing the experience for both clinicians and patients. </sec>
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».