Physician home visits to rostered patients during their last year of life: a retrospective cohort study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Physician home visits are associated with better health outcomes, yet most patients near the end of life never receive such a visit. Our objectives were to describe the receipt of physician home visits during the last year of life after a referral to home care - an indication that the patient can no longer live independently - and to measure associations between patient characteristics and receipt of a home visit. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked population-based health administrative databases housed at ICES. We identified adult (aged ≥ 18 yr) decedents in Ontario who died between Mar. 31, 2013, and Mar. 31, 2018, who were receiving primary care and were referred to publicly funded home care services. We described the provision of physician home visits, office visits and telephone management. We used multinomial logistic regression to calculate the odds of receiving home visits from a rostered primary care physician, controlling for referral during the last year of life, age, sex, income quintile, rurality, recent immigrant status, referral by rostered physician, referral during hospital stay, number of chronic conditions and disease trajectory based on the cause of death. RESULTS: Of the 58 753 decedents referred in their last year of life, 3125 (5.3%) received a home visit from their family physician. Patient characteristics associated with higher odds of receiving home visits compared to office-based or telephone-based care were being female (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.35), being 85 years of age or older (adjusted OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.80-3.26) and living in a rural area (adjusted OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.18). Increased odds were associated with home care referrals by the patient's primary care physician (adjusted OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.39-1.58) and referrals occurring during a hospital stay (adjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.13-1.28). INTERPRETATION: A small proportion of patients near the end of life received home-based physician care, and patient characteristics did not explain the low visit rates. Future work on system- and provider-level factors may be critical to improve access to home-based end-of-life primary care.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».