MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7075264416

Effect of the introduction of a financial incentive for fee-paying a&e attenders to consult their general practitioner before attending the a&e department

2018· article· en· W7075264416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditIncentiveEmergency departmentConfidence intervalHealth careQuarter (Canadian coin)Primary care
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. The Health (Out-Patient Charges) Regulations 1994 were designed to encourage those Irish patients liable for their own health care costs to attend their GP before their local Accident and Emergency (A&E) department. Such patients are referred to as General Medical Services (GMS)-ineligible. Prior to the introduction of the regulations in March 1994, there was a perverse financial incentive for these patients to attend directly A&E departments instead of their GP.\nObjective. The aim was to compare the number of GMS-ineligible patients referred by a GP during the year before and the year after the implementation of the Regulations.\nMethod. This study involved the audit of all new attendances to a large A&E department, for 1 year before and after the introduction of the new regulations. The main outcome measures were the number of new attenders in the subsequent year, the proportion of GMS-ineligible attenders, the proportion of GMS-ineligible attenders referred by a GP and the proportion of GMS-ineligible attenders referred by a GP and categorized as having neither critical nor urgent complaints.\nResults. The total number of new attenders in the year subsequent to the introduction of the regulations was 45 302, an increase of 4.9% on the previous year's total. The proportion of GMS-ineligible attenders decreased from 45.3 to 44% (-1.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI)-0.6 to -1.9). The proportion of GMS-ineligible attenders who were referred by a GP increased by 2.4% (95%; CI 1.7-3.1). The proportion of GMS-ineligible attenders, referred by a GP with complaints categorized as neither critical nor urgent, increased by 2.5% (95%; CI 1.8-3.2).\nConclusions. The introduction of the regulations was associated with a small, but statistically significant, reduction in the number of GMS-ineligible patients who attended with non-emergency conditions. The proportion of GMS-ineligible attenders who were referred by a GP increased by 2.4% (95%; CI 1.7-3.1). The overall workload of the A&E department was, however, unaffected. Further evaluation of the effects of this reduction on the health status of patients is required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology)Same topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207