ArticleAACE endocrinology and diabetes
Triage to Advice Only for Referring Providers: A Pilot Project Using Formal Consensus Methods to Establish Appropriate Patients for Electronic Consultations.
Article in AACE endocrinology and diabetes. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Access to equitable, timely consultations by Endocrinologists remains problematic, requiring optimization of referral pathways to ensure rapid advice and reduce wait times. Objective: Our goal was to develop consensus amongst endocrinologists regarding referral scenarios that are most amenable to advice only (eConsultation) using formal consensus methods and to examine consistency across 2 distinct divisions of Endocrinology. Methods: Using the nominal group technique, members of the Division of Endocrinology at site 1, generated 58 clinical scenarios considered appropriate for advice back to the referring provider in place of an in person visit. A Modified Delphi process was conducted to indicate the level of agreement for each scenario. The rating scale included 5 items; strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree or strongly agree on whether the scenario is suitable for eConsultation. Three Modified Delphi rounds were conducted independently at 2 divisions of Endocrinologists at academic institutions in different cities and compared to identify areas of consensus or no consensus. We defined consensus as 70% or more of participants selected agree or strongly agree and fewer than 20% selected disagree or strongly disagree. Results: At site 1, among 12 initial respondents, consensus was obtained for 45 items (78%), of which 38 items were voted appropriate for eConsultation, 7 items were voted as not appropriate, and 13 had no consensus. At the second site, among 13 initial respondents, consensus was reached for 48 items (83%) of which 34 were voted as appropriate while 14 were considered not appropriate for eConsultation and no consensus was found for 10 items. Major discordance between sites occurred for only 2 items. Conclusion: There was a high degree of consensus at 2 academic medical centers identifying clinical scenarios appropriate for advice back/eConsultation in place of an appointment utilizing a Modified Delphi process. Identifying scenarios with consensus supports consistent decision making for eConsultation among clinicians involved in triaging referrals for ambulatory care Endocrinology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.