Can after-hours family medicine clinics represent an alternative to emergency departments? Survey of ambulatory patients seeking after-hours care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' motivations for seeking care in the emergency department (ED) after hours and their willingness to consult their family physicians instead, if their family physicians had been available. DESIGN: Survey using an 8-item questionnaire. SETTING: Two tertiary care hospital EDs in Ottawa, Ont, from June 4 to 22, 2007, between 5 pm and 9 pm. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 151 ambulatory patients. Patients who arrived by ambulance or who bypassed those waiting were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' self-reported motivation for seeking after-hours care in the ED, the perceived urgency of their medical complaints, and their willingness to have sought care from their family physicians instead, if they had been available. RESULTS: There were 218 eligible patients during the study period. Among the 151 respondents (69.3% response rate), 141 qualified for the study. Of the qualified respondents, 57.4% would have chosen to consult their family physicians instead if they had been available. The most common reason for choosing the ED was the perceived need for services unavailable at family medicine clinics, such as specialist consultation or diagnostic imaging. There were no differences in the perceived urgency of patients' medical conditions or the amount of time they were willing to wait before physician assessment between those who would have been willing to seek care from their family physicians and those who would not have been willing. CONCLUSION: After-hour family medicine clinics provide a desirable primary care service that most patients would choose over the ED if more were available.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".