Methods to Describe Referral Patterns in a Canadian Primary Care Electronic Medical Record Database: Modelling Multilevel Count Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A referral from a family physician (FP) to a specialist is an inflection point in the patient journey, with potential implications for clinical outcomes and health policy. Primary care electronic medical record (EMR) databases offer opportunities to examine referral patterns. Until recently, software techniques were not available to model these kinds of multi-level count data. OBJECTIVE: To establish methodology for determining referral rates from FPs to medical specialists using the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) EMR database. METHOD: Retrospective cohort study, mixed effects and multi-level negative binomial regression modelling with 87,258 eligible patients between 2007 and 2012. Mean referrals compared by patient sex, age, chronic conditions, FP visits, and urban/rural practice location. Proportion of variance in referral rates attributable to the patient and practice levels. RESULTS: On average, males had 0.26, and females 0.31 referrals in a 12-month period. Referrals were significantly higher for females, increased with age, FP visits, and number of chronic conditions (p<.0001). Overall, 14% of the variance in referrals could be attributed to the practice level, and 86% to patient level characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Both patient and practice characteristics influenced referral patterns. The methodologic insights gained from this study have relevance to future studies on many research questions that utilize count data, both within primary care and broader health services research. The utility of the CPCSSN database will continue to increase in tandem with data quality improvements, providing a valuable resource to study Canadian referral patterns over time.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".