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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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".