Effect of Access to After-Hours Primary Care on the Association Between Home Nursing Visits and Same-Day Emergency Department Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous work has demonstrated that home care patients have an increased risk of visiting the emergency department after a home nursing visit on the same day. We investigated whether this association is modified by greater access to after-hours primary care. METHODS: We conducted a population-based case-crossover study of home care patients in Ontario, Canada in 2014-2016. Emergency department visits after 5:00 pm were selected as case periods and matched, within the same patient, to control periods within the previous week. The association between home nursing visits and same-day emergency department visits was estimated with conditional logistic regression. Access to after-hours primary care, measured on the patient and practice level, was tested for effect modification using an interaction term approach. Analysis was performed separately for all emergency department visits and a less urgent subset not admitted to hospital. RESULTS: A total of 11,840 patients contributed cases to the analysis. Patients with a history of after-hours primary care use had a smaller increased risk of a same-day after-hours emergency department visit (OR = 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.30) compared with patients with no after-hours care (OR = 1.31; 95% CI, 1.25-1.39). The modifying effect was stronger among emergency department visits not admitted to hospital (OR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28 vs OR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.31-1.51). CONCLUSION: Greater access to after-hours primary care reduced the risk of less-urgent emergency department use associated with home nursing visits. These findings suggest increasing access to after-hours primary care could prevent some less-urgent emergency department visits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".