MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416974523 · doi:10.2147/opth.s549183

Ontario Primary Care Practitioners and Access to Ophthalmologists Through Electronic Consultation

2025· article· en· W4416974523 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julia Britton, Clare Liddy

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical ophthalmology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary careService (business)Specialist careAdvice (programming)Eye carePrimary health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: In Canada, accessing specialty services remains a significant challenge, leading to growing wait times for specialist care. To address this concern, the Champlain Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation (BASE) service was introduced. The Champlain BASE eConsult service is a secure web-based program that enables access to medical specialists by PCPs. The primary objective is to investigate the types of questions primary care providers (PCP) are asking ophthalmologists through the BASE service. Patients and Methods: Descriptive and retrospective analysis of 116 eConsults sent from PCPs to the ophthalmology specialty between January and December 2022, within the Champlain region, covering ~ 1.3 million people in Eastern Ontario. Using two validated taxonomies, the “content” and “type” of questions asked were coded. A closeout survey was used to determine PCP’s subsequent course of action, referral outcomes, and perceived helpfulness of eConsult responses. Results: 116 eConsults (37 pediatric; 79 adult) were reviewed with an average patient age of 36.8 years. The most common types of questions asked related to general management (61%) and referral appropriateness (43%). The most common content questions related to other non-specified content – adults (28%), lid lesions (24%) and other non-specified content – pediatrics (12%). The ophthalmologist’s median response time was 0.67 days (16.1 hours) after eConsult creation, with 84% of responses being received within seven days. PCPs received a new or additional course of action in 47% of cases. Unnecessary in-person referrals were avoided in 44% of cases. Over 88% of cases were rated at least 4/5 in value, and in 94% of eConsults, the ophthalmologists’ recommendations were accepted. Conclusion: The use of the eConsult service improves access to ophthalmologists by providing quicker, helpful, and generally accepted specialist advice while decreasing the requirement for patients to attend in-person consultations. Plain Language Summary: In Canada, long wait times to see specialists like eye doctors are a significant concern for patients. Our study looked at how family doctors and nurse practitioners used an eConsult service to ask eye doctors questions about how to manage their patients’ eye issues. We examined how many in-person referrals were prevented, how helpful the service was to the family doctors and nurse practitioners, and how quickly they received responses. We found that the online service helped patients get faster advice from eye doctors and reduced the need for in-person visits. The family doctors and nurse practitioners felt that the service was useful for their own learning and improved their ability to manage eye issues for future patients. Keywords: family medicine, specialist, healthcare access, eConsult

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ophthalmologySame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207