Frequency and Type of Outpatient Visits for Patients With Cardiovascular Ambulatory‐Care Sensitive Conditions During the COVID‐19 Pandemic and Subsequent Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Because the impact of changes in how outpatient care was delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, we designed this study to examine the frequency and type of outpatient visits between March 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic) and from March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 (pandemic) and specifically compared outcomes after virtual versus in-person outpatient visits during the pandemic. Methods and Results Population-based retrospective cohort study of all 3.8 million adults in Alberta, Canada. We examined all physician visits and 30- and 90-day outcomes, with a focus on those adults with the cardiovascular ambulatory-care sensitive conditions heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes. Our primary outcome was emergency department visit or hospitalization, evaluated using survival analysis accounting for competing risk of death. Although in-person outpatient visits decreased by 38.9% in the year after March 1, 2020 (10 142 184 versus 16 592 599 in the prior year), the introduction of virtual visits (7 152 147; 41.4% of total) meant that total outpatient visits increased by 4.1% in the first year of the pandemic for Albertan adults. Outpatient visit frequency (albeit 41.4% virtual, 58.6% in-person) and prescribing patterns were stable in the first year after pandemic onset for patients with the cardiovascular ambulatory-care sensitive conditions we examined, but laboratory test frequency declined by 20% (serum creatinine) to 47% (glycosylated hemoglobin). In the first year of the pandemic, virtual outpatient visits were associated with fewer subsequent emergency department visits or hospitalizations (compared with in-person visits) for patients with heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.96] at 30 days and 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.00] at 90 days), hypertension (aHR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.91] and 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.95] at 30 and 90 days), or diabetes (aHR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.87-0.93] and 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.95] at 30 and 90 days). Conclusions The adoption and rapid uptake of virtual outpatient care during the COVID-19 pandemic did not negatively impact frequency of follow-up, prescribing, or short-term outcomes, and could have potentially positively impacted some of these for adults with heart failure, diabetes, or hypertension in a setting where there was an active reimbursement policy for virtual visits. Given declines in laboratory monitoring and screening activities, further research is needed to evaluate whether long-term outcomes will differ.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".