MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404808705 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6377

Saving money by integrating physiotherapists in the emergency department: Mission possible?

2024· article· en· W4404808705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rose Gagnon, Kadija Perreault, Jason R. Guertin, Luc J. Hébert, Simon Berthelot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentComputer scienceEngineering managementMedical emergencyAeronauticsEngineeringMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. Emergency department (ED) overcrowding is a complex phenomenon. One solution proposed to improve patient flow in the ED is the addition of physiotherapists to manage musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD). To our knowledge, no North American study has looked at the costs of this new care model compared to usual care provided by emergency physicians (EP). Objective. Compare the average cost of an ED visit between three ED care models. Study Design and Analysis. Cost study based on randomized clinical trial data (NCT04009369). Costs incurred for the management of participants through the three care models were calculated using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing, in which the time invested with a patient determines care costs. Setting. ED of the CHU de Québec – Université Laval (Quebec, Canada). Population Studied. Persons aged 18 to 80 presenting to the ED with a minor MSKD (n=78). Intervention. Three ED care models were compared: 1) management by a PT and an EP; 2) management by an EP according to usual care; and 3) management by a PT. Outcome Measures. Mean cost of an ED visit for a MSKD. Generalized linear models with Gamma distributions and log links were used to assess whether there was a significant difference in mean ED visit costs between the three care models. A probabilistic budget impact sub analysis comparing the costs of implementing the two new care models for 10,000 patients was also carried out (reference cost: usual care by an EP, Canadian payer system perspective, 10,000 random samples of 10,000 patients). Results. Mean ED visit cost for PT and EP management was $278.55 (2018 $CAD, Min-Max: 97.64-1,389.94), compared with $267.86 for EP management (62.46-1,490.85), resulting in a non-significant absolute difference of $11.67/patient between models (p=.78). The average cost of management by a PT was $193.87 (62.46-678.47), representing an average saving of $70.96/patient compared to EP management. Implementing management by a PT and an EP would cost the healthcare system an average of $107,335.31 more per 10,000 patients (95% CI: 48,416.05-165,953.41), whereas management by a PT would save the health system an average of $739,467.20 (689,476.88-789,717.02). Conclusions. This study is a first step towards a better understanding of the costs associated with care models integrating physiotherapists in the ED for patients presenting with a MSKD. These innovative care models may have the potential to help reduce healthcare costs in the ED.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→