Huygens Martine W J, Swinkels Ilse C S, Verheij Robert A, Friele Roland D, van Schayck Onno C P, de Witte Luc P
Department of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Center for Care Technology Research, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 21;8(1):e019233. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019233.
It is unclear why the use of email consultation is not more widespread in Dutch general practice, particularly because, since 2006, its costs can be reimbursed. To encourage further implementation, it is needed to understand the current use of email consultations. This study aims to understand the use of email consultation by different patient groups, compared with other general practice (GP) consultations.
For this retrospective observational study, we used Dutch routine electronic health record data obtained from NIVEL Primary Care Database for the years 2010 and 2014.
200 general practices were included in 2010 (734 122 registered patients) and 434 in 2014 (1 630 386 registered patients).
The number and percentage of email consultations and patient characteristics (age, gender, neighbourhood socioeconomic status and diagnoses) of email consultation users were investigated and compared with those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. General practice characteristics were also taken into account.
32.0% of the Dutch general practices had at least one email consultation in 2010, rising to 52.8% in 2014. In 2014, only 0.7% of the GP consultations were by email (the others comprised home visits, telephone and face-to-face consultations). Its use highly varied among general practices. Most email consultations were done for psychological (14.7%); endocrine, metabolic and nutritional (10.9%); and circulatory (10.7%) problems. These diagnosis categories appeared less frequently in telephone and face-to-face consultations. Patients who had an email consultation were older than patients who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In contrast, patients with diabetes who had an email consultation were younger.
Even though email consultation was done in half the general practices in the Netherlands in 2014, the actual use of it is extremely low. Patients who had an email consultation differ from those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In addition, the use of email consultation by patients is dependent on its provision by GPs.
目前尚不清楚为何电子邮件咨询在荷兰全科医疗中未得到更广泛应用,尤其是自2006年以来其费用可报销。为鼓励进一步推广,有必要了解电子邮件咨询的当前使用情况。本研究旨在了解不同患者群体使用电子邮件咨询的情况,并与其他全科医疗(GP)咨询方式进行比较。
对于这项回顾性观察研究,我们使用了从荷兰初级卫生保健数据库(NIVEL)获取的2010年和2014年荷兰常规电子健康记录数据。
2010年纳入了200家全科诊所(734122名注册患者),2014年纳入了434家(1630386名注册患者)。
调查电子邮件咨询的数量和百分比以及电子邮件咨询用户的患者特征(年龄、性别、社区社会经济地位和诊断情况),并与进行电话或面对面咨询的患者进行比较。同时也考虑了全科医疗的特征。
2010年,32.0%的荷兰全科诊所至少进行了一次电子邮件咨询,到2014年这一比例升至52.8%。2014年,仅有0.7%的全科医疗咨询是通过电子邮件进行的(其他包括家访、电话和面对面咨询)。其在不同全科诊所中的使用差异很大。大多数电子邮件咨询是针对心理问题(14.7%);内分泌、代谢和营养问题(10.9%);以及循环系统问题(10.7%)。这些诊断类别在电话和面对面咨询中出现的频率较低。进行电子邮件咨询的患者比进行电话或面对面咨询的患者年龄更大。相比之下,进行电子邮件咨询的糖尿病患者年龄更小。
尽管2014年荷兰有一半的全科诊所开展了电子邮件咨询,但实际使用率极低。进行电子邮件咨询的患者与进行电话或面对面咨询的患者不同。此外,患者对电子邮件咨询的使用取决于全科医生是否提供该项服务。