Newborn readmissions and virtual primary care delivery: a population-based case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Early post-discharge assessments for newborns are recommended. Virtual care has become more prevalent during the pandemic, providing an opportunity to better understand its impact on the quality of post-discharge newborn care. The objective of this study was to understand whether primary care visit modality (in-person vs. virtual) is associated with early newborn hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits. Methods We conducted a population-based, case-control study using linked health administrative databases between September 1, 2020 and March 31, 2022 in Ontario, Canada. We compared the modality of primary care visits among cases (hospital readmission within 14 days of life) and controls (newborns without a readmission), matched on infant sex, gestational age, and maternal parity. We included an alternative definition of cases as a composite of either a newborn hospital readmission or emergency department (ED) visit or in-hospital death within the first 14 days of life. Conditional logistic regression models were used to model odds ratios (ORs), comparing those exposed to a virtual visit versus in-person visit, adjusting for infant birth weight, birth hospitalization length of stay, neighbourhood level material deprivation, rurality and presence of active maternal comorbidities. Results Among 73,324 eligible newborns, 2,220 experienced a hospital readmission within 14 days of life and were matched to 8,880 controls. Jaundice was the primary reason for readmission (75% of readmissions). Compared to newborns who were seen in-person post-discharge, newborns who were seen virtually had higher odds of hospital readmission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.41 (95% CI 1.09, 1.83); the magnitude of effect was not different using the composite outcome (aOR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05, 1.75). Conclusions Newborns who receive a virtual post-discharge visit are more likely than those who receive an in-person visit to require hospital readmission.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.403 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".