Health Care Utilization After a Visit to a Within-Group Family Physician vs a Walk-In Clinic Physician.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Annals of Family Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1370/afm.3181
Christine Salahub, Peter C Austin, Li Bai, Simon Berthelot, R Sacha Bhatia, Cherryl Bird, Laura Desveaux, Tara Kiran, Aisha Lofters, Danielle Martin, Kerry McBrien, Rita K McCracken, J Michael Paterson, Bahram Rahman, Jennifer Shuldiner, Mina Tadrous, Niels Thakkar, Noah M Ivers, Lauren Lapointe-Shaw
{"title":"Health Care Utilization After a Visit to a Within-Group Family Physician vs a Walk-In Clinic Physician.","authors":"Christine Salahub, Peter C Austin, Li Bai, Simon Berthelot, R Sacha Bhatia, Cherryl Bird, Laura Desveaux, Tara Kiran, Aisha Lofters, Danielle Martin, Kerry McBrien, Rita K McCracken, J Michael Paterson, Bahram Rahman, Jennifer Shuldiner, Mina Tadrous, Niels Thakkar, Noah M Ivers, Lauren Lapointe-Shaw","doi":"10.1370/afm.3181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Primary care access is a key health system metric, but little research has compared models to provide primary care access when one's regular physician is not available. We compared health system use after a visit with a patient's own family physician group (ie, within-group physician who was not the patient's primary physician) vs a visit with a walk-in clinic physician who was not part of the patient's family physician group.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, including all individuals formally enrolled with a family physician, from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. We compared those visiting within-group physicians to those visiting walk-in clinic physicians using propensity score matching to account for differences in patient characteristics. The primary outcome was any emergency department visit within 7 days of the initial visit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Matched patients who visited a within-group physician (N = 506,033) were 10% less likely to visit an emergency department in the 7 days after the initial visit compared to patients who saw a walk-in clinic physician (N = 506,033; 20,117 [4.0%] vs 22,320 [4.4%]; risk difference [RD] 0.4%; 95% CI 0.4-0.5; relative risk [RR] 0.90; 95% CI, 0.89-0.92). Restricting to visits occurring on weekends, the observed association was stronger (7,964 [3.7%] vs 10,055 [4.7%]; RD 1.0%; 95% CI 0.9-1.1; RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82). Those accessing after-hours within-group physician visits were more likely to have ≥1 additional virtual or in-person within-group physician visit within 7 days (virtual RR 1.86, in-person RR 1.87).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to visiting a walk-in clinic physician, seeing a within-group physician after hours might decrease downstream emergency department visits. This finding could be explained by better continuity of care and can inform primary care service models and the policies that support them.</p>","PeriodicalId":50973,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Family Medicine","volume":"22 6","pages":"483-491"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11588379/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3181","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Primary care access is a key health system metric, but little research has compared models to provide primary care access when one's regular physician is not available. We compared health system use after a visit with a patient's own family physician group (ie, within-group physician who was not the patient's primary physician) vs a visit with a walk-in clinic physician who was not part of the patient's family physician group.

Methods: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, including all individuals formally enrolled with a family physician, from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020. We compared those visiting within-group physicians to those visiting walk-in clinic physicians using propensity score matching to account for differences in patient characteristics. The primary outcome was any emergency department visit within 7 days of the initial visit.

Results: Matched patients who visited a within-group physician (N = 506,033) were 10% less likely to visit an emergency department in the 7 days after the initial visit compared to patients who saw a walk-in clinic physician (N = 506,033; 20,117 [4.0%] vs 22,320 [4.4%]; risk difference [RD] 0.4%; 95% CI 0.4-0.5; relative risk [RR] 0.90; 95% CI, 0.89-0.92). Restricting to visits occurring on weekends, the observed association was stronger (7,964 [3.7%] vs 10,055 [4.7%]; RD 1.0%; 95% CI 0.9-1.1; RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.82). Those accessing after-hours within-group physician visits were more likely to have ≥1 additional virtual or in-person within-group physician visit within 7 days (virtual RR 1.86, in-person RR 1.87).

Conclusions: Compared to visiting a walk-in clinic physician, seeing a within-group physician after hours might decrease downstream emergency department visits. This finding could be explained by better continuity of care and can inform primary care service models and the policies that support them.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
组内家庭医生与随访诊所医生就诊后的医疗保健使用情况。
目的:初级医疗就诊是医疗系统的一项关键指标,但很少有研究对在没有固定医生的情况下提供初级医疗就诊的模式进行比较。我们比较了患者在自己的家庭医生小组(即非患者主治医生的小组内医生)就诊后与在不属于患者家庭医生小组的随到随诊诊所就诊后使用医疗系统的情况:我们利用加拿大安大略省的行政数据开展了一项基于人群的回顾性队列研究,研究对象包括 2019 年 4 月 1 日至 2020 年 3 月 31 日期间所有正式注册的家庭医生。我们采用倾向得分匹配法,将就诊于组内医生的患者与就诊于免诊诊所医生的患者进行了比较,以考虑患者特征的差异。主要结果是首次就诊后 7 天内的急诊就诊情况:结果:在组内就诊的匹配患者(N = 506,033 人)与在门诊就诊的患者相比,在首次就诊后 7 天内到急诊科就诊的可能性降低了 10%(N = 506,033 人;20,117 [4.0%] vs 22,320 [4.4%];风险差异 [RD] 0.4%;95% CI 0.4-0.5;相对风险 [RR] 0.90;95% CI,0.89-0.92)。仅限于周末就诊,观察到的关联性更强(7,964 [3.7%] vs 10,055 [4.7%];RD 1.0%;95% CI 0.9-1.1;RR 0.79;95% CI,0.77-0.82)。那些在下班后接受组内医生诊疗的人更有可能在 7 天内接受≥1 次额外的虚拟或面对面组内医生诊疗(虚拟 RR 1.86,面对面 RR 1.87):结论:与看无预约门诊医生相比,下班后看组内医生可能会减少下游急诊就诊率。这一发现可能是由于医疗服务的连续性更强,可为初级医疗服务模式和支持这些模式的政策提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Family Medicine
Annals of Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
142
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Family Medicine is a peer-reviewed research journal to meet the needs of scientists, practitioners, policymakers, and the patients and communities they serve.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of a Program Designed to Support Implementation of Prescribing Medication for Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care Practices. Evaluation of an AI-Based Voice Biomarker Tool to Detect Signals Consistent With Moderate to Severe Depression. For AI in Primary Care, Start With the Problem. Primary Care Physicians' Responses to Treatment Burden in People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Qualitative Video Analysis in China. The AI Moonshot: What We Need and What We Do Not.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1