The effects of primary care accessibility and continuity of care on less-urgent emergency department use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims. Since the early 2000s, Canada’s primary care system has undergone substantial reforms, including the incorporation of interdisciplinary teams and strategies to optimise accessibility. However, the effects of primary care accessibility and continuity of care on less-urgent emergency department (ED) use are unclear. Three studies were undertaken to investigate the effects of primary care accessibility and continuity of care factors on less-urgent ED use. Methods. Study One employed a cross-sectional analysis of responses to the Canadian Survey of Experiences with Primary Health Care to predict self-reported ED visit avoidability; Study Two employed a longitudinal time-to-event analysis of responses to Ontario’s Health Care Experience Survey linked with subsequent National Ambulatory Care Reporting System data to predict medically assessed less-urgent ED use; and Study Three employed time-series analyses of presentations to two northern British Columbia EDs following changes in walk-in clinic coverage. Results. Study One (n = 2,625) found no significant associations between self-reported ED visit avoidability and all measures of primary care accessibility and continuity of care. However, rural respondents reported greater ED visit avoidability. Conversely, Study Two (n = 34,686) found that all accessibility factors were significantly associated with medically assessed less-urgent ED use, including the presence of a regular PCP, the regular source of care, and the availability of after-hours care through the PCP. However, time with the same PCP was not associated with medically assessed less-urgent ED use. Rurality was also found to moderate the effect of after-hours care accessibility, with only rural respondents reporting a beneficial effect. Finally, Study Three found that changes in walk-in clinic coverage resulted in short-term impacts on less-urgent ED use, with a walk-in clinic closure resulting in an immediate increase in less-urgent presentations and an opening resulting in an immediate decrease. Conclusions. The findings of Studies Two and Three provide evidence that primary care accessibility factors are associated with medically assessed less-urgent ED use; however, the findings of Study One suggest that these factors do not influence self-perceived ED visit avoidability. Future studies should consider this discordance when measuring the impact of primary care accessibility on less-urgent ED use.
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 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".