Association between physician continuity of care and patient outcomes in clinical teaching units: a cohort analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital-based clinical teaching units (CTUs) are supervised by rotating attending physicians. Physician hand-offs in other contexts have been associated with worse patient outcomes, presumably through communication gaps. We aimed to determine the association between attending physician hand-offs on CTUs and patient outcomes including escalation of care, readmission and mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicentre cohort study using data from 3 tertiary care hospitals in Calgary between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2017. We included hospital admissions in the top 10 case-mix groups. Our exposure variable was the number of attending physicians seen by a patient. Outcome measures were admission to intensive care unit (ICU); inpatient 7- and 30-day mortality; and 7- and 30-day readmission rate. We used multivariable regression statistical models adjusted for patient age, sex, length of stay, Charlson Comorbidity Index, case-mix groups, senior resident presence, team handovers and team transfers. RESULTS: Our cohort included 4324 unique patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of admission to ICU, inpatient 7- and 30-day mortality, and 7- and 30-day readmission rates among 1 or 2 physicians. However, we noted a significant increase in 30-day readmission rate (IRR 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.78) in patients who had 3 or more attending physicians compared with those who had 1 attending physician. INTERPRETATION: We found that 2 or more physician hand-offs on CTUs had a modestly greater association with patient readmission at 30 days. More research is needed to explore this finding and to evaluate associated patient and resource outcomes with physician hand-offs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".