Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27598248›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2016

Associations between Extending Access to Primary Care and Emergency Department Visits: A Difference-In-Differences Analysis.

William Whittaker, Laura Anselmi, Søren Rud Kristensen, Yiu-Shing Lau, Simon Bailey, Peter Bower, Katherine Checkland, Rebecca Elvey, Katy Rothwell, Jonathan Stokes and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. What do we mean by urgent care? Definitional confusion and its consequences.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Addressing Social Determinants of Vision Health.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

William WhittakerManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Laura AnselmiManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Søren Rud KristensenManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6608-7132
Yiu-Shing LauManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Simon BaileyAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9142-2791
Peter BowerNIHR School for Primary Care Research Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Katherine ChecklandNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Rebecca ElveyNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Katy RothwellNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Greater Manchester, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6839-2598
Jonathan StokesNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Damian HodgsonAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9292-5945

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth services across the world increasingly face pressures on the use of expensive hospital services. Better organisation and delivery of primary care has the potential to manage demand and reduce costs for hospital services, but routine primary care services are not open during evenings and weekends. Extended access (evening and weekend opening) is hypothesized to reduce pressure on hospital services from emergency department visits. However, the existing evidence-base is weak, largely focused on emergency out-of-hours services, and analysed using a before-and after-methodology without effective comparators. METHODS AND

findingsThroughout 2014, 56 primary care practices (346,024 patients) in Greater Manchester, England, offered 7-day extended access, compared with 469 primary care practices (2,596,330 patients) providing routine access. Extended access included evening and weekend opening and served both urgent and routine appointments. To assess the effects of extended primary care access on hospital services, we apply a difference-in-differences analysis using hospital administrative data from 2011 to 2014. Propensity score matching techniques were used to match practices without extended access to practices with extended access. Differences in the change in "minor" patient-initiated emergency department visits per 1,000 population were compared between practices with and without extended access. Populations registered to primary care practices with extended access demonstrated a 26.4% relative reduction (compared to practices without extended access) in patient-initiated emergency department visits for "minor" problems (95% CI -38.6% to -14.2%, absolute difference: -10,933 per year, 95% CI -15,995 to -5,866), and a 26.6% (95% CI -39.2% to -14.1%) relative reduction in costs of patient-initiated visits to emergency departments for minor problems (absolute difference: -£767,976, -£1,130,767 to -£405,184). There was an insignificant relative reduction of 3.1% in total emergency department visits (95% CI -6.4% to 0.2%). Our results were robust to several sensitivity checks. A lack of detailed cost reporting of the running costs of extended access and an inability to capture health outcomes and other health service impacts constrain the study from assessing the full cost-effectiveness of extended access to primary care.

conclusionsThe study found that extending access was associated with a reduction in emergency department visits in the first 12 months. The results of the research have already informed the decision by National Health Service England to extend primary care access across Greater Manchester from 2016. However, further evidence is needed to understand whether extending primary care access is cost-effective and sustainable.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandHumansPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID27598248
PMCPMC5012704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.