MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4317895204 · doi:10.1370/afm.21.s1.3985

Exploring the Role of Primary Care Clinic Continuity for Patients with COPD or Heart Failure

2023· article· en· W4317895204 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Terrence J. McDonald, Lisa Cook, Paul E. Ronksley, Alka Patel, Judy Seidel, Lee A. Green, Brendan Cord Lethebe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineContext (archaeology)COPDRetrospective cohort studyEmergency medicineObservational studyContinuity of careHealth careHeart failureFamily medicineMedical emergencyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Family physicians (FP) play a vital role in managing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or heart failure (HF). Much emphasis has been placed on care pathways which involve community FPs caring for patients following hospitalization or treatment in the Emergency Department (ED). Given the trend in part-time practice, questions remain on the role of clinic continuity and its impact on health outcomes. Objective: Our objective is to understand the impact of varying level of primary care clinic continuity (i.e. group care) on patient health outcomes. Study Design and Analysis: We conducted a retrospective observational study of all FPs and COPD and HF patients in Alberta from 2015-18 to explore the association between patient health outcomes and three levels of community-based primary clinic continuity. FP claims data were linked to patients’ ED and inpatient encounters. Usual provider care index (UPC) was calculated for each provider and facility over 3 years. The proportion of a patient’s visits to a non-panel provider at their panel providers main facility was calculated and called the “Group Care Rate” (GCR). The GCR for each patient was calculated and categorized as low (0-10%), moderate (10-20%) and high (21+%). Patients with 100% UPC were removed from the analysis, since by definition their GCR=0, leading to collinearity in the modelling. Multivariable zero-inflated negative binomial models were fit, adjusting for age, sex, complexity and UPC. Dataset: De-identified FP claims were linked to ED and inpatient encounters from Alberta Health. Intervention or Instrument: None. Outcome Measures: ED visit or Hospital admission for COPD or HF. Result: Zero-inflated negative binomial regression models showed that high GCR (20%+) has a protective effect, for both COPD and HF patients, relative to low GCR (0-10%). Specifically, relative to low GCR, COPD patients with high GCR had an IRR of 0.75 (0.72, 0.80) in terms of hospital visits, and 0.90 (0.87, 0.93) in terms of ED visits. Similarly, relative to low GCR, HF patients with high GCR had an IRR of 0.77 (0.72, 0.81) in terms of hospital visits, and 0.90 (0.86, 0.95) in terms of ED visits. Conclusions: Patients with COPD or HF who seek care from community-based primary care clinics with high (relative to low) group care were associated with reduced rates of ED visits and hospitalizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChronic Disease Management Strategies→French-language works237,207→