The eConsultant service is an asynchronous digital, clinician-to-clinician advice platform that gives general practitioners rapid remote access to specialist input for patient care. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of triaging selected specialist outpatient referrals in endocrinology and neurology to eConsultant in an Australian hospital setting. The model under study is termed Triaging Referrals to eConsultant (TReC).
The stated aim was to assess whether triaging GP referrals to eConsultant could provide timely specialist advice, be acceptable to patients and providers, and be appropriate for selected referral types in the Mater Hospital Brisbane outpatient pathway.
The proof-of-concept evaluation was conducted for GP referrals to Mater Hospital Brisbane. The evaluation combined analysis of clinical data from the eConsultant platform, responses to GP surveys, and qualitative interviews with patients, GPs, and specialist stakeholders. Survey results and interview transcripts were analysed to understand acceptability and appropriateness of the TReC model to patients and providers.
The timeframe for the pilot was 11 months, from October 2024 to August 2025. The source reports aggregated operational and qualitative findings; specific sampling frames, statistical methods for analyses, or detailed survey instruments were not provided in the abstract.
During the 11-month pilot period, a subset of referrals in the two specialties was triaged to eConsultant. The numbers reported were 51 endocrinology referrals, representing 21% of endocrinology referrals, and 77 neurology referrals, representing 6% of neurology referrals, that were triaged to the eConsultant pathway.
These figures indicate selective application of the TReC approach across the two specialties, with a higher proportion of endocrinology referrals routed to eConsultant compared with neurology in this implementation.
Specialists responding via the eConsultant platform spent, on average, 20 minutes completing each eConsultant response. The responses were provided to GPs in a mean time of 3.5 business days, with a reported standard deviation of 2.5 business days.
This timing metric reflects both the rapid-access intent of the service and the asynchronous nature of clinician-to-clinician communication. The source does not report any direct cost or workload modelling beyond the averaged time-per-response and response turnaround time.
The pilot identified the predominant presenting conditions triaged to the platform in each specialty. For neurology, common presentations included unexpected findings on imaging and migraine. For endocrinology, frequent reasons were osteoporosis and hyperthyroidism.
These diagnostic categories represent conditions for which specialist advice may be suitable to deliver remotely and may in some cases avoid immediate face-to-face outpatient attendance.
Close-out surveys were returned by GPs for 14.8% (n = 19) of referrals triaged to eConsultant. In nine of those surveyed cases, GPs reported that the eConsultant advice resulted in a change to patient care.
The proportion of returned surveys was modest; no further quantitative details about the nature of the care changes, patient outcomes, or longer-term follow-up were provided in the abstract.
Qualitative interviews with patients, GPs, and specialists highlighted perceived benefits of the TReC model. Reported benefits included reduced treatment delays, greater convenience for patients, and improved continuity of care because GPs retained a central coordinating role while receiving specialist input.
The interviews also emphasized that the option to continue with a face-to-face specialist appointment after receiving eConsultant advice was necessary and preferred in some cases by both GPs and patients. The abstract does not provide thematic details, participant counts, or illustrative quotations beyond these summary findings.
The authors conclude that triaging GP referrals to eConsultant (TReC) is feasible in the Australian context and has the potential to reduce treatment delays for patients referred to outpatient specialist services. The pilot demonstrated that a subset of referrals in endocrinology and neurology can be managed via asynchronous specialist advice with a relatively short specialist time investment and turnaround.
The study suggests acceptability to patients and providers, with qualitative data indicating perceived benefits such as convenience and continuity of care. It also highlights that maintaining the option of face-to-face referral remains important for some clinical scenarios and for some patient or GP preferences.
The abstract does not report detailed economic evaluation, comparative outcome measures versus standard face-to-face referral, nor specific recommendations for scale-up. Those details and any planned next steps were not included in the source abstract.
Overall, the pilot supports feasibility of TReC for selected outpatient referrals and identifies areas for further evaluation, including broader uptake, impact on waitlists and clinical outcomes, and operational considerations for sustaining specialist workflow in an eConsultant model.