@article{discovery10046851,
       publisher = {ELSEVIER DOYMA SL},
         journal = {Neurolog{\'i}a},
           title = {El correo electr{\'o}nico en la consulta de Parkinson: ?soluciones a un clic? // Use of e-mail for Parkinson's disease consultations: Are answers just a clic away?},
            note = {Copyright {\copyright} 2016 Sociedad Espanola de Neurolog{\i}a. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/
4.0/).},
          volume = {33},
           pages = {107--111},
          number = {2},
            year = {2018},
           month = {March},
             url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2016.05.020},
            issn = {1578-1968},
        keywords = {Consulta electr{\'o}nica, Atenci{\'o}n por mail, Telemedicina, Atenci{\'o}n electr{\'o}nica, Parkinson // E-consult, Email-based consultation, Telemedicine, Electronic consultation, Parkinson's disease},
        abstract = {INTRODUCCION: La problem{\'a}tica de los trastornos del movimiento (TM) es compleja y la duraci{\'o}n y frecuencia de las consultas presenciales puede estar limitada por problemas de espacio y tiempo. Analizamos el funcionamiento de un servicio de atenci{\'o}n por correo electr{\'o}nico institucional para m{\'e}dicos de Atenci{\'o}n Primaria (MAP) y pacientes en la Unidad de Trastornos del Movimiento (UTM).

METODOS: Se revisaron retrospectivamente los correos electr{\'o}nicos enviados y recibidos en un periodo de 4 meses, un a{\~n}o tras su implantaci{\'o}n. La direcci{\'o}n se proporcionaba en consulta y mediante sesiones informativas a los MAP del {\'a}rea. Se analizaron datos cl{\'i}nicos y demogr{\'a}ficos de los pacientes, tipo de interlocutor, n{\'u}mero de consultas, motivo y actuaciones derivadas de ellas.

RESULTADOS: Del 1 de enero al 30 de abril de 2015 se recibieron 137 correos de 63 pacientes (43\% varones; edad 71 {$\pm$} 10,5 a{\~n}os) diagnosticados de enfermedad de Parkinson (76\%), parkinsonismos at{\'i}picos (10\%) y otros (14\%), y se enviaron 116 respuestas. En 20 casos (32\%) fueron redactados por el paciente, en 38 (60\%) por sus familiares y en 5 (8\%) por MAP. Los motivos de consulta fueron cl{\'i}nicos en 50 casos (80\%): deterioro cl{\'i}nico (16; 32\%), nuevos s{\'i}ntomas (14; 28\%), efectos secundarios o dudas sobre medicaci{\'o}n (20; 40\%). Como consecuencia, se adelant{\'o} una cita programada en 9 casos (14\%), mientras que el resto se solucionaron por correo electr{\'o}nico. En 13 (20\%), el motivo de consulta fue burocr{\'a}tico: relacionado con citas (11, 85\%) y solicitud de informe (2, 15\%). La satisfacci{\'o}n fue generalizada, sin constituir una sobrecarga asistencial excesiva para los facultativos responsables.

CONCLUSIONES: La implantaci{\'o}n de una consulta por correo electr{\'o}nico es factible en UTM, facilita la comunicaci{\'o}n m{\'e}dico-paciente y la continuidad asistencial con Atenci{\'o}n Primaria. // 

INTRODUCTION: The clinical problems of patients with movement disorders (MD) are complex, and the duration and frequency of face-to-face consultations may be insufficient to meet their needs. We analysed the implementation of an e-mail-based query service for our MD unit's patients and their primary care physicians (PCPs).

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive emails sent and received over a period of 4 months, one year after implementation of the e-mail inquiry system. All patients received the during consultations, and PCPs, during scheduled informative meetings. We recorded and later analysed the profile of the questioner, patients' demographic and clinical data, number of queries, reason for consultation, and actions taken.

RESULTS: From 1 January 2015 to 30 April 2015, the service received 137 emails from 63 patients (43\% male, mean age 71 {$\pm$} 10.5) diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (76\%), atypical parkinsonism (10\%), and others (14\%); 116 responses were sent. Twenty (32\%) emails were written by patients, 38 (60\%) by their caregivers, and 5 (8\%) by their PCPs. The reasons for consultation were clinical in 50 cases (80\%): 16 (32\%) described clinical deterioration, 14 (28\%) onset of new symptoms, and 20 (40\%) side effects or concerns about medications. In 13 cases (20\%), the query was bureaucratic: 11 were related to appointments (85\%) and 2 were requests for clinical reports (15\%). In response, new appointments were scheduled in 9 cases (14\%), while the rest of the questions were answered by email. Patients were satisfied overall and the additional care burden on specialists was not excessive.

CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an e-mail-based consultation system is feasible in MD units. It facilitates both communication between neurologists and patients and continued care in the primary care setting.},
          author = {Viedma-Guiard, E and Aguero, P and Crespo-Araico, L and Estevez-Fraga, C and Sanchez-Diez, G and Lopez-Sendon, JL and Aviles-Olmos, I and Garcia-Ribas, G and Palacios Romero, ML and Masjuan Vallejo, J and Martinez-Castrillo, JC and Alonso-Canovas, A}
}