The impact of e-visits on patient access to primary care

  • Xiang Zhong
  • Peter Hoonakker
  • Philip A. Bain
  • Albert J. Musa
  • Jingshan Li
Article

Abstract

To improve patient access to primary care, many healthcare organizations have introduced electronic visits (e-visits) to provide patient-physician communication through secure messages. However, it remains unclear how e-visit affects physicians’ operations on a daily basis and whether it would increase physicians’ panel size. In this study, we consider a primary care physician who has a steady patient panel and manages patients’ office and e-visits, as well as other indirect care tasks. We use queueing-based performance outcomes to evaluate the performance of care delivery. The results suggest that improved operational efficiency is achieved only when the service time of e-visits is smaller enough to compensate the effectiveness loss due to online communications. A simple approximation formula of the relationship between e-visit service time and e-visit to office visit referral ratio is provided serving as a guideline for evaluating the performance of e-visit implementation. Furthermore, based on the analysis of the impact of e-visits on physician’s capacity, we conclude that it is not the more e-visits the better, and the condition for maximal panel size is investigated. Finally, the expected outcomes of implementing e-visits at Dean East Clinic are discussed.

Keywords

Primary care E-visits Queueing Cycle time Patient access Panel size 

References

  1. 1.
    Deloitte (2014) Evisits: The 21st century housecall. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/deloitte-au-tmt-evisits-011014.pdf
  2. 2.
    Whitten P et al (2007) Physician-patient e-visit programs. Dis Manag Health Out 15(4):207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bodenheimer T (2006) Primary care — will it survive? N Engl J Med 355(9):861–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mearian L (2014) Almost one in six doctor visits will be virtual this year. Computer World. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2490959/healthcare-it-almost-one-in-six-doctor-visits-will-be-virtual-this-year.html
  5. 5.
    Howell N (2014) The doctor’s office of 2024 - 4 predictions for the future. The Profitable Practice. http://profitable-practice.softwareadvice.com/doctors-office-of-2024-0514/
  6. 6.
    Green LV et al (2013) Primary care physician shortages could be eliminated through use of teams, nonphysicians, and electronic communication. Health Aff 32(1):11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hickson R et al (2015) Online medical care: The current state of evisits in acute primary care delivery. Telemed e-Health 21(2):90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liederman EM et al (2005) The impact of patient-physician web messaging on provider productivity. J Healthc Inf Manag 19(2):81–86Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Virji A et al (2006) Use of email in a family practice setting: Opportunities and challenges in patient-and physician-initiated communication. BMC Med 4(1):18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baer D (2011) Patient-physician e-mail communication: The Kaiser Permanente experience. J Oncol Pract 7(4):230–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou YY et al (2010) Improved quality at Kaiser Permanente through e-mail between physicians and patients. Health Aff 29(7):1370–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gidwani N et al (2012) Connecting with patients online: E-visits. Consulting report prepared for the US Department of Family and Community Medicine Academic Health CenterGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leong SL et al (2005) Enhancing doctor-patient communication using email: a pilot study. J Am Board Fam Pract 18(3):180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nijland N et al (2009) Increasing the use of e-consultation in primary care: Results of an online survey among non-users of e-consultation. Int J Med Inform 78(10):688–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen C et al (2009) The Kaiser Permanente electronic health record: Transforming and streamlining modalities of care. Health Aff 28(2):323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baker L et al (2005) Effect of an internet-based system for doctor-patient communication on health care spending. J Am Med Inform Assoc 12(5):530–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adamson SC, Bachman JW (2010) Pilot study of providing online care in a primary care setting. Mayo Clin Proc 85:704–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prestigiacomo J (2012) Making the evisit work: How upmc got patients, physicians, and payers onboard. Healthcare Informatics Online. http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/article/making-evisit-work
  19. 19.
    Mehrotra A et al (2009) Comparing costs and quality of care at retail clinics with that of other medical settings for 3 common illnesses. Ann Intern Med 151(5):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mehrotra A et al (2013) A comparison of care at e-visits and physician office visits for sinusitis and urinary tract infection. JAMA Intern Med 173(1):72–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rohrer JE (2010) Impact of online primary care visits on standard costs: a pilot study. Popul Health Manag 13(2):59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gaster B et al (2003) Physicians’ use of and attitudes toward electronic mail for patient communication. J Gen Intern Med 18(5):385–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Houston TK (2004) Experiences of patients who were early adopters of electronic communication with their physician: satisfaction, benefits, and concerns. Am J Manag Care 10(9):601–608Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Herrick DM (2006) Telemedicine provides benefits, but security and privacy risks abound. Health Care News. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm
  25. 25.
    Padman R et al (2009) evisit: A pilot study of a new kind of healthcare delivery. Stud Health Technol Inform 160(1):262–266Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    WSJ (2012) Should physicians use email to communicate with patients? Wall Street Journal Jan. 23Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bavafa H et al (2013) Patient portals in primary care: Impacts on patient health and physician productivity. Available at SSRN 2363705Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jacobson SH (2006) Discrete-event simulation of health care systems. Patient Flow: Reducing Delay in Healthcare Delivery. Springer, 211–252Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brailsford SC (2007) Advances and challenges in healthcare simulation modeling: Tutorial. Proceedings of the 39th Conference on Winter Simulation. Winter Simulation Conference, 1436–1448Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eldabi T et al (2007) Simulation modelling in healthcare: Reviewing legacies and investigating futures. J Oper Res Soc 58(2):262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gunal MM, Pidd M (2010) Discrete event simulation for performance modelling in health care: a review of the literature. Int J Simul 4(1):42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhong X et al (2016d) Primary care redesign: Review and a simulation study at a pediatric clinic. In: Yang H, Lee E (eds) Healthcare Analytics: From Data to Knowledge to Healthcare Improvement. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhong X et al (2017) Prom production systems to health care delivery systems: A retrospective look on simularities, difficulties, and opportunities. International Journal of Production Research. doi:10.1080/00207543.2016.1277276
  34. 34.
    Green LV et al (2006) Using queueing theory to increase the effectiveness of emergency department provider staffing. Acad Emerg Med 13(1):61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fomundam S, Herrmann JW (2007) A survey of queuing theory applications in healthcare. The Institute for Systems Research Technical Report 2007–24Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Green LV, Sergei S (2008) Reducing delays for medical appointments: a queueing approach. Oper Res 56 (6):1526–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jiang L, Giachetti RE (2008) A queueing network model to analyze the impact of parallelization of care on patient cycle time. Health Care Manag Sci 11(3):248–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu N, nAunno T (2012) The productivity and cost-efficiency of models for involving nurse practitioners in primary care: a perspective from queueing analysis. Health Serv Res 47(2):594–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liu N et al (2014) A new model for nurse practitioner utilization in primary care: Increased efficiency and implications. Health Care Manag Rev 39(1):10–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McClean S et al (1998) Using a Markov reward model to estimate spend-down costs for a geriatric department. J Oper Res Soc 49(10):1021–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Taylor G (2000) Stochastic models of geriatric patient bed occupancy behaviour. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc 163(1):39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang J (2014) Modeling and analysis of care delivery services within patient rooms: a system-theoretic approach. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 11(2):379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhong X et al (2016) A system-theoretic approach to modeling and analysis of mammography testing process. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst Hum 46(1):126–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhong X et al (2016) Design and analysis of gastroenterology (GI) clinic in Digestive Health Center of University of Wisconsin Health. Flex Serv Manuf J 28(1-2):90–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bavafa H et al (2013) Managing office revisit intervals and patient panel sizes in primary care. Available at SSRN 2363685Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhong X et al (2016) Electronic visits in primary care: Modeling, analysis, and scheduling policies. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering. doi:10.1109/TASE.2016.2555854
  47. 47.
    Raffoul M (2016) A primary care panel size of 2500 is neither accurate nor reasonable. J Am Board Fam Med 29(4):496– 499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lee HK et al (2016) Joint service in primary care clinics: Modeling, analysis, and an application study. Technique ReportGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sinsky CA et al (2013) In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med 11(3):272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    DeanCare (2015) Mychart access to your health records, anytime, anywhere. https://mychart.deancare.com/mychart/default.asp?mode=stdfile&option=learnmore
  51. 51.
    CDC (2013) Ambulatory care use and physician visits. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 2013: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/docvisit.html
  52. 52.
    Green LV (2006) Queueing anlaysis in healthcare. In: Patient flow: Reducing delay in healthcare delivery hall RW edit. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 281–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Doshi B (1985) A note on stochastic decomposition in a G I/g/1 queue with vacations or set-up times. J Appl Probab 22(2):419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kingman JFC (1962) Some inequalities for the queue G I/g/1. Biometrika 49(3/4):315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Marshall KT (1968) Some inequalities in queuing. Oper Res 16(3):651–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    El-Taha M (2011) Sample-Path Analysis of Single-Server Queue with Multiple Vacations. ISRN Applied Mathematics. Hindawi Publishing CorporationGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cooper RB (1972) Introduction to Queueing Theory. MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Center for Quality and Productivity ImprovementUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Dean Health SystemMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations