Association between in‐hospital supportive visits by primary care physicians and patient outcomes: A population‐based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One long-standing method for continuity of care as patients transition between the hospital and community are supportive visits by primary care physicians during hospitalization. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used administrative data of adults hospitalized from 2008 to 2009 and primary care physicians who conduct supportive visits. Patients who received a visit from their primary care physician while hospitalized were compared to those who did not. Composite outcomes of death, emergency department visit, or emergent readmission within 30 and 90 days were assessed. Postdischarge home-care utilization and primary care physician visits were also examined. Multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, low income, rurality, and readmission risk. RESULTS: Of the 164,059 patients linked to 3236 primary care physicians, 12.0% received visits while hospitalized. Visited patients had more readmissions, more deaths, and fewer emergency department visits than patients who did not. However, after adjusting, visited patients had a lower risk for the composite outcome at 30 days (adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-0.96) and 90 days (aOR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87-0.92). Visited patients were also more likely to access community primary care-provider visits and more home-care services. The in-hospital visit resulted in an increased likelihood of health services utilization at 30 days (aOR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.11-1.22) and 90 days (aOR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.12-1.27). CONCLUSION: A hospital supportive-care visit from a primary care physician resulted in lower risks of adverse patient outcomes and increased access to community health services. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:418-424. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".