» Articles » PMID: 37101803

Self-Triage Use, Subsequent Healthcare Utilization, and Diagnoses: A Retrospective Study of Process and Clinical Outcomes Following Self-Triage and Self-Scheduling for Ear or Hearing Symptoms

Overview
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialty Public Health
Date 2023 Apr 27
PMID 37101803
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Self-triage is becoming more widespread, but little is known about the people who are using online self-triage tools and their outcomes. For self-triage researchers, there are significant barriers to capturing subsequent healthcare outcomes. Our integrated healthcare system was able to capture subsequent healthcare utilization of individuals who used self-triage integrated with self-scheduling of provider visits.

Methods: We retrospectively examined healthcare utilization and diagnoses after patients had used self-triage and self-scheduling for ear or hearing symptoms. Outcomes and counts of office visits, telemedicine interactions, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were captured. Diagnosis codes associated with subsequent provider visits were dichotomously categorized as being associated with ear or hearing concerns or not. Nonvisit care encounters of patient-initiated messages, nurse triage calls, and clinical communications were also captured.

Results: For 2168 self-triage uses, we were able to capture subsequent healthcare encounters within 7 days of the self-triage for 80.5% (1745/2168). In subsequent 1092 office visits with diagnoses, 83.1% (891/1092) of the uses were associated with relevant ear, nose and throat diagnoses. Only 0.24% (4/1662) of patients with captured outcomes were associated with a hospitalization within 7 days. Self-triage resulted in a self-scheduled office visit in 7.2% (126/1745). Office visits resulting from a self-scheduled visit had significantly fewer combined non-visit care encounters per office visit (fewer combined nurse triage calls, patient messages, and clinical communication messages) than office visits that were not self-scheduled (-0.51; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.29;  < .0001).

Conclusion: In an appropriate healthcare setting, self-triage outcomes can be captured in a high percentage of uses to examine for safety, patient adherence to recommendations, and efficiency of self-triage. With the ear or hearing self-triage, most uses had subsequent visit diagnoses relevant to ear or hearing, so most patients appeared to be selecting the appropriate self-triage pathway for their symptoms.

Citing Articles

A comparison of self-triage tools to nurse driven triage in the emergency department.

Trivedi S, Batta R, Henao-Romero N, Mondal P, Wilson T, Stempien J PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0297321.

PMID: 39196994 PMC: 11356451. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297321.


Patient Opportunities to Self-Schedule in a Large Multisite, Multispecialty Medical Practice: Program Description and Uptake of 7 Unique Processes for Patients to Successfully Self-Schedule (and Reschedule) Their Medical Appointments.

North F, Buss R, Nelson E, Thompson M, Pecina J, Crum B Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2024; 11:23333928241271933.

PMID: 39185323 PMC: 11342323. DOI: 10.1177/23333928241271933.


Self-scheduling Medical Visits in a Multispecialty, Multisite Medical Practice: Complexity, Challenges, and Successes.

North F, Buss R, Nelson E, Thompson M, Pecina J, Garrison G Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2024; 11:23333928241253126.

PMID: 38736506 PMC: 11085017. DOI: 10.1177/23333928241253126.


Importance of Patient History in Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Medical Diagnosis: Comparison Study.

Fukuzawa F, Yanagita Y, Yokokawa D, Uchida S, Yamashita S, Li Y JMIR Med Educ. 2024; 10:e52674.

PMID: 38602313 PMC: 11024399. DOI: 10.2196/52674.


Hospitalization Risk Associated With Emergency Department Reasons for Visit and Patient Age: A Retrospective Evaluation of National Emergency Department Survey Data to Help Identify Potentially Avoidable Emergency Department Visits.

North F, Garrison G, Jensen T, Pecina J, Stroebel R Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2023; 10:23333928231214169.

PMID: 38023369 PMC: 10664417. DOI: 10.1177/23333928231214169.

References
1.
Yoshida Y, Thomas Clark G . Accuracy of online symptom checkers for diagnosis of orofacial pain and oral medicine disease. J Prosthodont Res. 2020; 65(2):186-190. DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPOR_2019_499. View

2.
Rubin G, Bate A, George A, Shackley P, Hall N . Preferences for access to the GP: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Gen Pract. 2006; 56(531):743-8. PMC: 1920713. View

3.
Schmieding M, Kopka M, Schmidt K, Schulz-Niethammer S, Balzer F, Feufel M . Triage Accuracy of Symptom Checker Apps: 5-Year Follow-up Evaluation. J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24(5):e31810. PMC: 9131144. DOI: 10.2196/31810. View

4.
Nijland N, Cranen K, Boer H, van Gemert-Pijnen J, Seydel E . Patient use and compliance with medical advice delivered by a web-based triage system in primary care. J Telemed Telecare. 2010; 16(1):8-11. DOI: 10.1258/jtt.2009.001004. View

5.
North F, Varkey P . How serious are the symptoms of callers to a telephone triage call centre?. J Telemed Telecare. 2010; 16(7):383-8. DOI: 10.1258/jtt.2010.091016. View