Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28545412›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

How do population, general practice and hospital factors influence ambulatory care sensitive admissions: a cross sectional study.

John Busby, Sarah Purdy, William Hollingworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Investigation of rural-urban differences in hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions: Analysis of linked survey, hospitalization, and tax data from Canada.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The impact of ambulatory care spending, continuity and processes of care on ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John BusbyCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, BT12 6BA, Belfast, UK. john.busby@qub.ac.uk.
Sarah PurdySchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.
William HollingworthSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-DG-1213-10004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReducing unplanned hospital admissions is a key priority within the UK and other healthcare systems, however it remains uncertain how this can be achieved. This paper explores the relationship between unplanned ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) admission rates and population, general practice and hospital characteristics. Additionally, we investigated if these factors had a differential impact across 28 conditions.

methodsWe used the English Hospital Episode Statistics to calculate the number of unplanned ACSC hospital admissions for 28 conditions at 8,029 general practices during 2011/12. We used multilevel negative binomial regression to estimate the influence of population (deprivation), general practice (size, access, continuity, quality, A&E proximity) and hospital (bed availability, % day cases) characteristics on unplanned admission rates after adjusting for age, sex and chronic disease prevalence.

resultsPractices in deprived areas (at the 90th centile) had 16% (95% confidence interval: 14 to 18) higher admission rates than those in affluent areas (10th centile). Practices with poorer care continuity (9%; 8 to 11), located closest to A&E (8%; 6 to 9), situated in areas with high inpatient bed availability (14%; 10 to 18) or in areas with a larger proportion of day case admissions (17%; 12 to 21) had more admissions. There were smaller associations for primary care access, clinical quality, and practice size. The strength of associations varied by ACSC. For example, deprivation was most strongly associated with alcohol related diseases and COPD admission rates, while continuity of primary care was most strongly associated with admission rates for chronic diseases such as hypertension and iron-deficiency anaemia.

conclusionsThe drivers of unplanned ACSC admission rates are complex and include population, practice and hospital factors. The importance of these varies markedly across conditions suggesting that multifaceted interventions are required to avoid hospital admissions and reduce costs. Several of the most important drivers of admissions are largely beyond the control of GPs. However, strategies to improve primary care continuity and avoid unnecessary short-stay admissions could lead to improved efficiency.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareHospitalizationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services MisuseHospitalsHumansInfantAmbulatory careGeneral practicePatient admissionPrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID28545412
PMCPMC5445441

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.