The Impact of Primary Care Clinic and Family Physician Continuity on Patient Health Outcomes: A Retrospective Analysis From Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Continuity of care is broadly associated with better patient health outcomes. The relative contributions of continuity with an individual physician and with a practice, however, have not generally been distinguished. This retrospective observational study examined the impact of continuity of care for patients seen at their main clinic but by different family physicians. METHODS: We analyzed linked health administrative data from 2015-2018 from Alberta, Canada to explore the association of physician and clinic continuity with rates of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations across varying levels of patient complexity. Physician continuity was calculated using the known provider of care index and clinic continuity with an analogous measure. We developed zero-inflated negative binomial models to assess the association of each with all-cause ED visits and hospitalizations. RESULTS: High physician continuity was associated with lower ED use across all levels of patient complexity and with fewer hospitalizations for highly complex patients. Broadly, no (0%) clinic continuity was associated with increased use and complete (100%) clinic continuity with decreased use, with the largest effect seen for the most complex patients. Levels of clinic continuity between 1% and 50% were generally associated with slightly higher use, and levels of 51% to 99% with slightly lower use. CONCLUSIONS: The best health care outcomes (measured by ED visits and hospitalizations) are associated with consistently seeing one's own primary family physician or seeing a clinic partner when that physician is unavailable. The effect of partial clinic continuity appears complex and requires additional research. These results provide some reassurance for part-time and shared practices, and guidance for primary care workforce policy makers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".