The effect of provider affiliation with a primary care network on emergency department visits and hospital admissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care networks are designed to facilitate access to inter-professional, team-based care. We compared health outcomes associated with primary care networks versus conventional primary care. METHODS: We obtained data on all adult residents of Alberta who visited a primary care physician during fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and classified them as affiliated with a primary care network or not, based on the physician most involved in their care. The primary outcome was an emergency department visit or nonelective hospital admission for a Patient Medical Home indicator condition (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, coronary disease, hypertension and diabetes) within 12 months. RESULTS: = 1 109 941). Patients in a primary care network were less likely to visit the emergency department for an indicator condition (1.4% v. 1.7%, mean 0.031 v. 0.035 per patient, adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-0.99) or for any cause (25.5% v. 30.5%, mean 0.55 v. 0.72 per patient, adjusted RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.93-0.94), but were more likely to be admitted to hospital for an indicator condition (0.6% v. 0.6%, mean 0.018 v. 0.017 per patient, adjusted RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.11) or all-cause (9.3% v. 9.1%, mean 0.25 v. 0.23 per patient, adjusted RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.07-1.09). Patients in a primary care network had 169 fewer all-cause emergency department visits and 86 fewer days in hospital (owing to shorter lengths of stay) per 1000 patient-years. INTERPRETATION: Care within a primary care network was associated with fewer emergency department visits and fewer hospital days.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".