Bellon Johanna E, Stevans Joel M, Cohen Susan M, James A Everette, Reynolds Benjamin, Zhang Yuting
1 Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
2 School of Rehabilitation and Health Sciences, University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Telemed J E Health. 2015 Dec;21(12):1019-26. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0248. Epub 2015 Jul 10.
Although electronic delivery (electronic visits [e-visits]) of healthcare services by advanced practice providers (APPs) is growing, literature defining the roles of different providers and comparing outcomes is lacking. We analyzed two e-visit models at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) to compare their providers (physicians and APPs) and associated outcomes.
We identified all e-visits for the UPMC AnywhereCare Continuity (physician providers for existing patients) and Convenience (physician and APP providers for Pennsylvania residents) services (n=2,184) using Epic Systems (Verona, WI) MyChart data (November 2013-August 2014). We compared e-visits by service and provider type for patient characteristics, volume, response time, primary diagnoses, and number of prescriptions. We used statistical tests to determine differences in patient characteristics and an ordinary least square linear regression, controlling for patient characteristics, to determine differences in prescribing.
Of the completed e-visits (n=1,791), 72.5% were with APPs, and 27.5% were with physicians. APP patients were younger, higher income, and more likely to be unmarried. Sinusitis patients were more likely to use the Continuity service, whereas those with urinary tract or upper respiratory infections were more likely to use the Convenience service. Finally, provider type was significantly associated with prescribing, with APPs prescribing more.
Some demographic variation exists between users of APP versus physician e-visits. Provider response time seems more driven by service policy than provider type. Finally, variation exists between provider types in quantities of prescriptions written. As health systems and policymakers develop protocols and reimbursement strategies for e-visits, these model considerations will be important.
尽管高级执业提供者(APP)进行的医疗服务电子交付(电子问诊[e-问诊])正在增加,但缺乏定义不同提供者角色并比较结果的文献。我们分析了匹兹堡大学医学中心(UPMC)的两种电子问诊模式,以比较其提供者(医生和APP)及相关结果。
我们使用Epic Systems(威斯康星州维罗纳)的MyChart数据(2013年11月 - 2014年8月)识别了UPMC AnywhereCare连续性服务(为现有患者提供医生服务)和便捷性服务(为宾夕法尼亚州居民提供医生和APP服务)的所有电子问诊(n = 2,184)。我们按服务和提供者类型比较了电子问诊的患者特征、数量、响应时间、主要诊断和处方数量。我们使用统计检验来确定患者特征的差异,并使用普通最小二乘线性回归,控制患者特征,以确定处方的差异。
在完成的电子问诊(n = 1,791)中,72.5%是由APP进行的,27.5%是由医生进行的。APP问诊的患者更年轻、收入更高且更可能未婚。鼻窦炎患者更可能使用连续性服务,而患有尿路感染或上呼吸道感染的患者更可能使用便捷性服务。最后,提供者类型与处方开具显著相关,APP开具的处方更多。
APP与医生电子问诊的用户之间存在一些人口统计学差异。提供者的响应时间似乎更多地由服务政策而非提供者类型驱动。最后,不同提供者类型在开具处方的数量上存在差异。随着卫生系统和政策制定者制定电子问诊的方案和报销策略,这些模式考量将很重要。