MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952435459 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026296

Primary care performance of alternatively licenced physicians in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study using administrative data

2019· article· en· W2952435459 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
FundersUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareYork UniversityQueen's UniversityCancer Care OntarioMcMaster UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studyPrimary carePublic healthFamily medicineEpidemiologyOptometryMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Medical Regulatory Authorities (MRAs) provide licences to physicians and monitor those physicians once in practice to support their continued competence. In response to physician shortages, many Canadian MRAs developed alternative licensure routes to allow physicians who do not meet traditional licensure criteria to obtain licences to practice. Many physicians have gained licensure through alternative routes, but the performance of these physicians in practice has not been previously examined. This study compared the performance of traditionally and alternatively licenced physicians in Ontario using quality indicators of primary care. The purpose of this study was to examine the practice performance of alternatively licenced physicians and provide evaluative evidence for alternative licensure policies. DESIGN: A cross-sectional retrospective examination of Ontario health administrative data was conducted using Poisson regression analyses to compare the performance of traditionally and alternatively licenced physicians. SETTING: Primary care in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All family physicians who were licenced in Ontario between 2000 and 2012 and who had complete medical billing data in 2014 were included (n=11 419). OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary care quality indicators were calculated for chronic disease management, preventive paediatric care, cancer screening and hospital readmission rates using Ontario health administrative data. RESULTS: Alternatively licenced physicians performed similarly to traditionally licenced physicians in many primary care performance measures. Minimal differences were seen across groups in indicators of diabetic care, congestive heart failure care, asthma care and cancer screening rates. Larger differences were found in preventive care for children less than 2 years of age, particularly for alternatively licenced physicians who entered Ontario from another Canadian province. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that alternatively licenced physicians perform similarly to traditionally licenced physicians across many indicators of primary care. Our study also demonstrates the utility of administrative data for examining physician performance and evaluating medical regulatory policies and programmes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.251
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.147 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it