ArticleBMC family practice2014
What is the impact of primary care model type on specialist referral rates? A cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC family practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of an interdisciplinary digital consultation platform on general practitioner referrals for musculoskeletal symptoms: a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.Family practice · 2025Trial
- Association between primary care physicians' practice models and referral rates to specialists: A sex-based cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Assessing Quality of Referrals to a Community-Based Chronic Pain Clinic.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2024Article
- Showcasing the Saudi e-referral system experience: the epidemiology and pattern of referrals utilising nationwide secondary data.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- The value proposition of efficiency discount options: The government employees medical scheme emerald value option case study.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2021Article
- Does this lung nodule need urgent review? A discrete choice experiment of Australian general practitioners.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2020Article
- Gatekeeping function of primary care physicians under Japan's free-access system: a prospective open cohort study involving 14 isolated islands.Family practice · 2019Article
- The impact of the adoption of a patient rostering model on primary care access and continuity of care in urban family practices in Ontario, Canada.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- Primary care physician referral patterns in Ontario, Canada: a descriptive analysis of self-reported referral data.BMC family practice · 2017Article
- Article
- General Practitioners' Attitudes towards Essential Competencies in End-of-Life Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey.PloS one · 2017Article
- Efficiency of Ontario primary care physicians across payment models: a stochastic frontier analysis.Health economics review · 2016Article
- Erratum: What is the impact of primary care model type on specialist referral rates? A cross-sectional study.BMC family practice · 2015Article
- The Provision of Health Care by Family Physicians in Taiwan as Illustrated With Population Pyramids.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
- The Impact of Primary Care Practice Models on Indicators of Unplanned Health Care Utilization for Ontario Adults Newly Diagnosed With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral new primary care models have been implemented in Ontario, Canada over the past two decades. These practice models differ in team structure, physician remuneration, and group size. Few studies have examined the impact of these models on specialist referrals. We compared specialist referral rates amongst three primary care models: 1) Enhanced Fee-for-service, 2) Capitation- Non-Interdisciplinary (CAP-NI), 3) Capitation - Interdisciplinary (CAP-I).
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using health administrative data from primary care practices in Ontario from April 1st, 2008 to March 31st, 2010. The analysis included all family physicians providing comprehensive care in one of the three models, had at least 100 patients, and did not have a prolonged absence (eight consecutive weeks). The primary outcome was referral rate (# of referrals to all medical specialties/1000 patients/year). A multivariable clustered Poisson regression analysis was used to compare referral rates between models while adjusting for provider (sex, years since graduation, foreign trained, time in current model) and patient (age, sex, income, rurality, health status) characteristics.
resultsFee-for-service had a significantly lower adjusted referral rate (676, 95% CI: 666-687) than the CAP-NI (719, 95% confidence interval (CI): 705-734) and CAP-I (694, 95% CI: 681-707) models and the interdisciplinary CAP-I group had a 3.5% lower referral rate than the CAP-NI group (RR = 0.965, 95% CI: 0.943-0.987, p = 0.002). Female and Canadian-trained physicians referred more often, while female, older, sicker and urban patients were more likely to be referred.
conclusionsPrimary care model is significantly associated with referral rate. On a study population level, these differences equate to 111,059 and 37,391 fewer referrals by fee-for-service versus CAP-NI and CAP-I, respectively - a difference of $22.3 million in initial referral appointment costs. Whether a lower rate of referral is more appropriate or not is not known and requires further investigation. Physician remuneration and team structure likely account for the differences; however, further investigation is also required to better understand whether other organizational factors associated with primary care model also impact referral.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.