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: 2.94). 11/2010; 48(11):972-80. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181eaf86d
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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, Aug 10, 2015
1 Follower
  • 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 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this review was to explore the range and prevalence of cancer treatment or disease-related symptoms in the emergency department and their associated outcomes. A systematic review examined studies cited in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL published from 1980 to July 2011. Eligible studies measured emergency department visits for symptom assessment in adult oncology patients. Two reviewers independently screened citations and double data extraction was used. Descriptive analysis was conducted. Of 1,298 citations, six prospective and 12 retrospective descriptive studies were included. Of these, eight focused on multiple symptoms and 10 targeted specific symptoms. The studies were published between 1995 and 2011, conducted in seven countries, and had a median sample size of 143 (range 9-27,644). Of the 28 symptoms reported, the most common were febrile neutropenia, infection, pain, fever, and dyspnea. Definitions provided for individual symptoms were inconsistent. Of 16 studies reporting admission rates, emergency visits resulted in hospital admissions 58 % (median) of the time in multi-symptom studies (range 31 % to 100 %) and 100 % (median) of the time in targeted symptoms studies (range 39 % to 100 %). Of 11 studies reporting mortality rates, 13 % (median) of emergency visits captured in multi-symptom studies (range 1 % to 56 %) and 20 % (median) of visits in targeted symptoms studies (range 4 % to 67 %) resulted in death. Individuals with cancer present to emergency departments with a myriad of symptoms. Over half of emergency department visits resulted in hospital admissions. Few symptoms were defined adequately to compare data across studies, thereby revealing an important gap in cancer symptom reporting.
    Supportive Care in Cancer 04/2012; 20(8):1589-99. DOI:10.1007/s00520-012-1459-y · 2.50 Impact Factor
Show more