Continuity of primary care and emergency department visits following knee and hip replacement surgery: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuity of primary care (CPC) improves patient well-being, but the association between CPC and surgical outcomes has not been well studied. The numbers of joint replacement procedures are expected to rise considerably in the coming years, so it is crucial to identify factors related to successful outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between CPC and emergency department (ED) visits after knee and hip replacement surgery. METHODS: Physician claims and hospital data from 2005 to 2020 in Nova Scotia were used in this retrospective study. To measure CPC, we used the Modified Modified Continuity Index (MMCI), which is the number of primary care providers adjusted for the total number of visits. The outcome was ED visits within 90 days of discharge. Logistic regression was used to test for associations between MMCI and the probability of an ED visit. RESULTS: There were 28 574 knee and 16 767 hip procedures in the data set; 13.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.5%-14.3%) and 13.5% (95% CI 13.0%-14.0%) of the patients, respectively, had an ED visit within 90 days. For patients who underwent knee procedures, the mean MMCI was 0.868 (95% CI 0.867-0.870); 10.7% (95% CI 10.4 %-11.1 %) had perfect continuity of care. For patients who underwent hip procedures, the corresponding measures were 0.864 (95% CI 0.862-0.866) and 13.5% (95% CI 13.0%-14.0%). There was a statistically significant negative association between greater continuity of care and the probability of an ED visit after controlling for confounders. CONCLUSION: Having multiple primary care providers before surgery increased the likelihood of negative outcomes following knee or hip replacement surgery compared with having a single provider. Presurgical conversations should include primary care history to improve postsurgical outcomes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".