Do Financial Incentives Change Length‐of‐stay Performance in Emergency Departments? A Retrospective Study of the Pay‐for‐performance Program in Metro Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance (P4P) programs have been implemented in various forms to reduce emergency department (ED) patient length of stay (LOS). This retrospective study investigated to what extent the timing of patient disposition in Metro Vancouver EDs was influenced by a LOS-based P4P program. METHODS: We analyzed ED visit records of four major hospitals in Metro Vancouver, Canada. For each ED, we individually tested whether LOS was distributed discontinuously at the LOS target before and after the P4P program was terminated. For the P4P effective period, we examined whether patients discharged just prior to the LOS target had a higher 7-day return-and-admission (RA) rate-the probability that a patient, after being discharged home, returned to any ED within 7 days and was admitted to an inpatient unit-than patients discharged just after the target. RESULTS: Prior to the termination of the P4P program, in all four EDs, the LOS density of admitted patients was discontinuous and had a significant drop at the P4P 10-hours admission LOS target; a similar phenomenon was observed among discharged patients at the 4-hours discharge LOS target, but only in the two lower-volume EDs. Furthermore, in a lower-volume ED, patients who were discharged right before the 4-hours P4P LOS target had a higher 7-day RA rate than patients discharged right after the LOS target. After the termination of the discharge incentive, the discontinuity at the discharge LOS target became less evident, but patients were still more frequently admitted just before 10 hours in three of the four EDs as the local health authority continued to support the admission incentive scheme after the government terminated the P4P program. CONCLUSIONS: The LOS-based financial incentive scheme appears to have influenced the timing of ED patient dispositions. The results suggest mixed consequences of the P4P program-it can reduce access block for admitted patients but may also lead to discharges associated with return visits and admissions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".