Are primary care virtual visits associated with higher emergency department use? A cross-sectional analysis from Ontario, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Importance The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased use of virtual care, however, few studies have looked at the association between virtual primary care visits and other healthcare use. Objective To determine whether there was an association between a high proportion of virtual visits in primary care and more emergency department visits Design A cross-sectional study, using routinely collected data Setting Ontario, Canada Participants Ontario residents alive on March 31 st 2021 and family physicians with at least 1 visit claim between February and October 2021. Exposure Family physicians stratified by the percentage of total visits that were virtual (phone or video) between February and October 2021 Main outcome(s) and measure(s) We calculated the emergency department visit rate for each stratum of family physician virtual care use. We used multivariable logistic regression models to understand the relative rate of patient emergency department use after stratifying for rurality and adjusting first for patient characteristics and then the 2019 emergency department visit rate. Results We analyzed data for 15,155 family physicians and 12,951,063 Ontarians attached to these physicians. The mean number of emergency department visits was highest among patients whose physicians provided only in-person care (470.3 ± 1918.8 per 1,000) and was lowest among physicians who provided >80 to <100% care virtually (242.0 ± 800.3 per 1,000). After adjustment for patient characteristics patients seen by physicians with >20% of visits delivered virtually had lower rates of emergency department visits compared to patients of physicians who provided >0%-20% virtually (e.g. >80 to <100% vs >0%-20% virtual visits in Big Cities, Relative Rate (RR) 0.80 [95%CI 0.76-0.83]). This trend held across all rurality strata and after adjustment for 2019 emergency department visit rates. In urban areas, there was a gradient whereby physicians providing the highest level of virtual care had the lowest emergency department visit rates. Conclusions and Relevance Physicians who provided a high proportion of care virtually did not have higher emergency department visits than those who provided the lowest levels of virtual care. Our findings refute hypotheses that emergency department use is being driven by family physicians providing more care virtually. Key points Question Do family physicians who provide more care virtually have higher emergency department visit rates among their patient panel? Findings In this cross-sectional study from Ontario, Canada, we examined data from February to October 2021 for 12,951,063 patients attached to 15,155 family doctors and found that physicians who provided a high proportion of virtual care did not have higher emergency department visits than those who provided the lowest levels of virtual care. This finding remained true after adjusting for patient characteristics. Meaning Our findings refute hypotheses that emergency department use is being driven by family physicians providing more care virtually.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».