MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944516768 · doi:10.1089/tmj.2019.0032

Insights into Specialists' Participation and Self-Reported Billing Times in a Multispecialty eConsult Service: Correlating Response Length with Outcomes and Satisfaction

2019· article· en· W2944516768 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Afkham, Clare Liddy

Bibliographic record

VenueTelemedicine Journal and e-Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyHelpfulnessRemunerationFamily medicineService (business)Affect (linguistics)PsychologyBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Electronic consultation (eConsult) services have been shown to reduce the need for face-to-face consultations. The largest expense is remunerating the specialist. Introduction: The Champlain BASE™ eConsult service remunerates specialists based on their self-reported billing time. It is important for funders of eConsult systems to understand and plan for specialist remuneration. This study examined specialists' time commitments pertaining to eConsult, identified factors that affect their self-reported billing time, and determined if self-reported billing time is associated with changes in primary care provider (PCP) behavior. Methods: A cross-sectional study of eConsults was completed between January 1 and December 31, 2017. Data were collected automatically by the service and through mandatory closeout surveys. Logistic regressions identified associations between specialists' self-reported billing time and volume of cases completed, PCP characteristics, specialty group, impact on PCP behaviors, and PCP satisfaction. Results: A total of 11,985 cases met inclusion criteria. Self-reported billing time was <5 min in 18.3% of cases, 5–10 min in 35.6%, 10–15 min in 27.3%, 15–20 min in 11.3%, and >20 min in 7.5%. Self-reported billing time demonstrated significant variation between specialty groups. Cases with higher self-reported billing time were more likely to lead to new/additional course of action for PCPs (p ≤ 0.0001), resulted in fewer referrals (p ≤ 0.0001), and received higher rankings for helpfulness and educational value (p ≤ 0.0001). Discussion: A thorough understanding of when and how specialists respond to eConsult cases is critical to ensuring the service's long-term sustainability. Examining these factors and their impact on PCP behaviors helps us to better understand the service's overall value and serve to inform the structure of its remuneration process. Conclusions: Specialists' self-reported billing time varies by specialty group and is associated with changes in PCP behavior and satisfaction. Further research is needed to identify what factors influence self-reported billing time and how eConsult can be best incorporated into clinicians' workflows.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTelemedicine Journal and e-HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207