Relation between family physician retention and avoidable hospital admission in Newfoundland and Labrador: a population-based cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physician turnover, involving physicians' leaving clinical practice in a specific area, may disrupt continuity of care, leading to poorer health outcomes and greater use of health care services. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between family physician retention and avoidable hospital admission for ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study using provincial health administrative data for residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who held a provincial health card between 2001 and 2009. Five-year family physician retention was calculated by regional economic zone, and residents within economic zones were grouped into tertiles based on physician retention level. We compared hospital admission for ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions among tertiles while adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: For 475 691 residents of the province, there was a negative relation between physician retention and hospital admission for ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions: residents of areas with moderate or low physician retention had admission rates that were 16.5% (95% confidence interval [CI) 12.6%-20.4%) and 19.9% (95% CI 15.2%-24.7%) higher, respectively, compared to areas with high retention. No relation was found when analysis was limited to those aged 65 years or more. INTERPRETATION: The findings suggest that high physician retention is associated with lower rates of hospital admission for ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions even after control for other factors. This is consistent with our hypothesis that physician turnover acts to disrupt continuity of care, resulting in higher admission rates.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".