Frequent users of emergency departments. Do they also use family physicians' services?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether frequent users of emergency department (ED) services use more or fewer primary care services than other ED patients. DESIGN: Population-based, observational, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Province of Ontario in 1997-1998. PARTICIPANTS: Frequent users of EDs, defined as people with at least 12 ED physician assessments yearly, were compared with those with one to 11 assessments yearly. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of general practitioner and family physician (GP/FP) office visits and number of GP/FPs visited; diagnoses made during office visits; referrals by GP/FPs to specialists. RESULTS: Three quarters of frequent users of EDs visited GP/FPs at least six times yearly, and more than half visited at least 12 times yearly. Although frequent users of EDs saw many GP/FPs (4.2 vs 1.6 in the control group, P < .001), they received, on average, 73% of their primary care from the GP/FPs whom they saw most frequently. Frequent users of EDs also had more referrals to specialists (4.0 vs 1.0). Frequent users of EDs were more likely to live in low socioeconomic neighbourhoods and to be diagnosed with psychosocial conditions (24.1% vs 11.1%). CONCLUSION: Most frequent users of EDs have periodic contact with primary care physicians. Communication and coordination of care between EDs and primary care settings could be easier than anticipated, because in most cases, frequent users of EDs seek most of their care from one main ED and one primary care physician.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".