The answer: Often, yes. In a 2026 peer-reviewed study, 29.1% of Virtual Hallway provider-to-provider consults were perceived to have prevented an emergency room visit.
- 29.1% of consults were perceived to have prevented an ER visit (587 consults, Nova Scotia, 2024–2025).
- 96.3% of providers said the consult helped them manage the patient more effectively.
- 35% vs 22.4% — perceived ER avoidance was higher in rural zones than in the urban Central Zone.
- 60%+ of avoided visits were rated moderately or highly urgent, not just minor cases.
- Findings reflect provider perception from an optional, observational survey — a directional signal, not proven causation.
Canadian emergency departments are stretched thin. Long waits, long stays, and months-long specialist timelines. So we asked a simple question: what happens when primary care providers can get direct specialist input?
A recent study looked at responses from 587 Virtual Hallway consults in Nova Scotia (Dec 2024–July 2025), and clinicians’ perceptions of whether a virtual provider-to-provider consultation potentially prevented an emergency department (ED) visit.
The problem: Canadian ERs are stretched thin
Across Canada, emergency department overcrowding is a persistent. Linked to longer waits, unsafe discharges, patients who leave before being seen. Patients continue to wait weeks to months for specialist input, leaving primary care providers managing uncertainty with limited support.
When specialist advice isn’t available in time, the ER can become the default option, sometimes when when the situation is not truly emergent, but because it’s the only place where timely assessment feels possible.
The question: What if specialist input was available at the point of primary care?
That’s the gap Virtual Hallway is built to close. Instead of referring a patient and waiting weeks, or the patient feeling like the ER is the only option, primary care provider books a synchronous phone consult with a specialist and gets an answer for their patient.
To understand the downstream effect, researchers analyzed post-consult surveys from 587 clinicians who used the platform across Nova Scotia between December 2024 and July 2025. After each consult, providers were asked a direct question: do you believe this consult potentially prevented an ER visit?
The finding: Nearly 1 in 3 consults were perceived to prevent an ER visit
29.1% of consults were perceived to have prevented an ER visit.
That’s not a small signal — and it suggests that rapid, peer-to-peer specialist input may reduce avoidable emergency care use in a meaningful subset of cases.
Earlier Virtual Hallway research found that 84% of consults didn’t require an in-person specialist referral at all. ER avoidance is the additional, higher-stakes outcome layered on top of that.
These weren’t all “minor” cases
Among consults perceived to have prevented an ER visit, clinicians rated urgency as:
In other words: while many avoided escalations were moderate or non-urgent, a notable portion were considered highly urgent, reinforcing that timely advice can matter across acuity levels.
The biggest impact showed up in rural zones
Perceived ER avoidance was higher in rural zones (35.0%) than in the urban Central Zone (22.4%).
Where specialist access is hardest, and where local options can be limited, provider-to-provider consultation may have disproportionate value.
One more number that stood out: clinicians said it improved patient management
Regardless of ER avoidance, 96.3% of respondents said the consult helped them manage the patient more effectively.
Even when a visit isn’t avoided, that kind of support can improve decision-making, confidence, and quality of care in the moment.
What this means (and what it doesn’t)
This study measures provider perception, not confirmed ER utilization and the survey was optional, so results may not represent every consult.
But the pattern is clear: clinicians frequently report that rapid specialist input helps them manage patients, and in a substantial minority of cases, they believe it may prevent an ED visit, especially in rural settings.
Frequently asked questions
Can a virtual specialist consultation prevent an emergency room visit?
In a 2026 study of 587 Virtual Hallway consults in Nova Scotia, 29.1% — nearly one in three — were perceived by the referring provider to have potentially prevented an ER visit. The study reflects provider perception rather than directly observed outcomes.
What is provider-to-provider consultation?
Provider-to-provider, or peer-to-peer, consultation lets a primary care provider or specialist get advice from a specialist directly, often by a same-day phone call, without formally referring the patient. It helps clinicians manage cases locally and can reduce unnecessary referrals and emergency visits.
Were the avoided ER visits only minor cases?
No. Among consults perceived to have prevented an ER visit, 9.9% were rated highly urgent and 53.2% moderately urgent, meaning more than six in ten involved cases of moderate-to-high clinical urgency.
Does virtual consultation help more in rural areas?
The study found a stronger effect in rural zones, where 35% of consults were perceived to prevent an ER visit, compared with 22.4% in the urban Central Zone, consistent with timely specialist access mattering most where it is hardest to reach.
What is Virtual Hallway?
Virtual Hallway is a Canadian provider-to-provider consultation platform that connects primary care providers with specialists for advice, helping clinicians manage patients without unnecessary referrals or emergency visits. The platform also includes Asklepius, its clinical reasoning AI tool for point-of-care clinical questions.
Is the research peer-reviewed?
Yes. The findings were published in the Journal of Primary Care & Community Health in 2026 by Rasic, Adib, and Cookey. As a perception-based, observational study, it shows association rather than proven causation.
Full citation
Rasic D, Adib A, Cookey J. Perceived Emergency Department Avoidance Following Virtual Provider-to-Provider Consultation: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health. 2026;17:1–8.