After-Hours Access To Primary Care Practices Linked With Lower Emergency Department Use And Less Unmet Medical Need

2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann S. O’Malley
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Emergency Department Use ◽  
Medical Need ◽  
After Hours ◽  
Care Practices ◽  
Access To Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Practices

scholarly journals Effect of Access to After-Hours Primary Care on the Association Between Home Nursing Visits and Same-Day Emergency Department Use

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 406-412
Author(s):  
Aaron Jones ◽  
Susan E. Bronskill ◽  
Connie Schumacher ◽  
Hsien Seow ◽  
David Feeny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Home Nursing ◽  
Emergency Department Use ◽  
After Hours

scholarly journals Rural emergency department use by CTAS IV and V patients

CJEM ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (03) ◽  
pp. 209-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Steele ◽  
Danielle Anstett ◽  
W. Ken Milne
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Rural Setting ◽  
Emergency Department Use ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
Low Volume ◽  
Access To Primary Care ◽  
Question Survey

ABSTRACTObjective:For a variety of reasons, many emergency department (ED) visits are classified as less- or nonurgent (Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale [CTAS] level IV and V). A recent survey in a tertiary care ED identified some of these reasons. The purpose of our study was to determine if these same reasons applied to patients presenting with problems triaged at a similar level at a low-volume rural ED.Methods:A 9-question survey tool was administered to 141 CTAS level IV and V patients who attended the South Huron Hospital ED, in Exeter, Ontario, over a 2-week period in December 2006.Results:Of the 141 eligible patients, 137 (97.2%) completed the study. One hundred and twenty-two patients (89.1%) reported having a family physician (FP) and 53 (38.7%) had already seen an FP before presenting to the ED. Just over one-half of all patients (51.1%) had their problem for more than 48 hours, and 42 (30.7%) stated that they were referred to the ED for care. Fifty-three (38.7%) of the respondents felt they needed treatment as soon as possible. Many patients reported coming to the ED because: 1) their FP office was closed (21.9%); 2) they could not get a timely appointment (16.8%); or 3) the walk-in clinic was closed (24.8%). Only 6 patients (4.4%) specifically stated that they came to the ED because they had no FP. One-third of patients attended the ED because they believed it offered specialized services.Conclusion:In this rural setting, most less- or nonurgent ED patients had an FP yet they went to the ED because they did not have access to primary care, because they perceived their problem to be urgent or because they were referred for or sought specific services.

scholarly journals Comparing primary care Interprofessional and non-interprofessional teams on access to care and health services utilization in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wissam Haj-Ali ◽  
Brian Hutchison ◽  
Rahim Moineddin ◽  
Walter P. Wodchis ◽  
Richard H. Glazier
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Access To Care ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Emergency Department Use ◽  
Services Utilization ◽  
Interprofessional Teams ◽  
Primary Care Teams ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
After Hours

Abstract Background Many countries, including Canada, have introduced primary care reforms to improve health system functioning and value. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between receiving care from interprofessional primary care teams and after-hours access to care, patient-reported walk-in clinic visits and emergency department use. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking population-based administrative databases to Ontario’s Health Care Experience Survey (HCES) between 2012 and 2018. We adjusted for physician group characteristics as well as individual physician and patient characteristics while assessing the relationship between receiving care from interprofessional teams and the outcomes of interest. Results As of March 31st, 2015, there were 465 physician groups with HCES respondents of which 177 (38.0%) were interprofessional teams and 288 (62.0%) were non-interprofessional teams in the same blended capitation reimbursement model. In this period, there were 4518 physicians with HCES respondents, of whom 2131 (47.2%) were in interprofessional teams and 2387 (52.8%) were in non-interprofessional teams. There were 10,102 HCES respondents included in this study, of whom 42.4% were in interprofessional teams and 42.3% were in non-interprofessional teams. After adjustment, we found that being in an interprofessional team was associated with an increase in the odds of patients reporting same/next day access to care by 12.0% (OR = 1.12 CI = 1.00 to 1.24 p-value 0.0436) and a decrease in the odds of patients reporting walk-in clinic use by 16% (OR = 0.84 CI = 0.75 to 0.94 p-value 0.0019). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in patient-reported after-hours access to care and emergency department use. Conclusions Ontario has invested heavily in interprofessional primary care teams. As compared to patients in non-interprofessional teams, patients in interprofessional teams self-reported more timely access to care and less walk-in clinic use but no significant difference in self-reported access to after-hours care or in emergency department use. For jurisdictions aiming to expand physician voluntary participation in interprofessional teams, our study results inform expectations around access to care and health services utilization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document