Emergency Department Visits and Primary Care Among Adults With Chronic Conditions

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies, St Mary's Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 3.23). 11/2010; 48(11):972-80. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181eaf86d
Source: PubMed


An emergency department (ED) visit may be a marker for limited access to primary medical care, particularly among those with ambulatory care sensitive chronic conditions (ACSCC).
In a population with universal health insurance, to examine the relationships between primary care characteristics and location of last general physician (GP) contact (in an ED vs. elsewhere) among those with and without an ACSCC.
A cross-sectional survey using data from 2 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey carried out in 2003 and 2005.
The study sample comprised Québec residents aged ≥18 who reported at least one GP contact during the previous 12 months, and were not hospitalized (n = 33,491).
The primary outcome was place of last GP contact: in an ED versus elsewhere. Independent variables included the following: lack of a regular physician, perceived unmet healthcare needs, perceived availability of health care, number of contacts with doctors and nurses, and diagnosis of an ACSCC (hypertension, heart disease, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes).
Using multiple logistic regression, with adjustment for sociodemographic, health status, and health services variables, lack of a regular GP and perceptions of unmet needs were associated with last GP contact in an ED; there was no interaction with ACSCC or other chronic conditions.
Primary care characteristics associated with GP contact in an ED rather than another site reflect individual characteristics (affiliation with a primary GP and perceived needs) rather than the geographic availability of healthcare, both among those with and without chronic conditions.

Download full-text


Available from: Jean-Frederic Levesque, Oct 07, 2015
1 Follower
73 Reads
  • Source
    • "By virtue of their low socio-economic status and lack of attachment they are marginalized in Canada’s health care system. We focus on chronic illnesses because people managing chronic illnesses require timely access to care [40] and yet are more likely to be unattached than those without chronic health conditions [12]. This may be due, in part, to the fact that Canadian family doctors can choose who to accept into their practices, and so it is thought that difficult or challenging patients are screened out [20]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unattached patients do not have a regular primary care provider. Initiatives are being developed to increase attachment rates across Canada. Most existing attention paid to patient unattachment has focused on quantifying the problem and health system costs. Our purpose is to qualitatively identify the implications of chronically ill patients' experiences of unattachment for health policy and planning to provide policy-relevant insights for Canadian attachment initiatives. Three focus groups were conducted with marginalized chronically ill individuals residing in a mid-sized city in British Columbia who are unattached to a family doctor. We use the term marginalized as a descriptor to acknowledge that by virtue of their low socio-economic status and lack of attachment the participants are marginalized in Canada's health care system Focus groups were structured as an open conversation organized around a series of probing questions. They were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was employed. Twenty-six individuals participated in the focus groups. The most common chronic illnesses reported were active drug addiction or recovery (and their associated symptoms), depression, arthritis, and hepatitis C. Participants identified life transitions as being the root cause for not having a family doctor. There was a strong sense that unsuccessful attempts to get a family doctor reflected that they were undesirable patients. Participants wanted to experience having a trusting relationship with a regular family doctor as they believed it would encourage greater honesty and transparency. One of the main health concerns regarding lack of access to a regular family doctor is that participants lacked access to preventative care. Participants were also concerned about having a discontinuous medical record due to unattachment. Participants perceived that there are many benefits to be had by having attachment to a regular family doctor and that experiencing unattachment challenged their health and access to health care. We encourage more research to be done on the lived experience of unattachment in order to provide on-the-ground insights that policy-makers require in order to develop responsive, patient-centred supports and programs.
    BMC Family Practice 07/2012; 13(1):69. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-13-69 · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many studies have shown the tendency for people without a regular care provider or primary physician to make greater use of emergency departments. We sought to determine the effects of three aspects of care provided by primary physicians (physician specialty, continuity of care and comprehensiveness of care) on their patients' use of the emergency department. Using provincial administrative databases, we created a cohort of 367,315 adults aged 18 years and older. Participants were residents of urban areas of Quebec. Affiliation with a primary physician, the specialty of this physician (i.e., family physician v. specialist), continuity of care (as measured using the Usual Provider Continuity index) and comprehensiveness of care (i.e., number of complete annual examinations) were measured among participants (n = 311,701) who had visited a physician three or more times during a two-year baseline period. We used multivariable negative binomial regression to investigate the relationships between measures of care and the number of visits to emergency departments during a 12-month follow-up period. Among participants under 65 years of age, emergency department use was higher for those not affiliated than for those affiliated with a family physician (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.16) or a specialist (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17). Among patients aged 65 years and older, having a specialist primary physician, as opposed to a family physician, predicted increased use of the emergency department (IRR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09-1.17). Greater continuity of care with a family physician predicted less use of the emergency department only among participants who made 25 or more visits to a physician during the baseline period. Greater continuity of care with a specialist predicted less use of the emergency department overall, particularly among participants with intermediate numbers of multimorbidities and admissions to hospital. Greater comprehensiveness of care by family physicians predicted less use of the emergency department. Efforts to increase the proportion of adults affiliated with a family physician should target older adults, people who visit physicians more frequently and people with multiple comorbidities and admissions to hospital.
    Canadian Medical Association Journal 02/2012; 184(6):E307-16. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.111069 · 5.96 Impact Factor
Show more