Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31123086›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

The primary care and other health system use of home care patients: a retrospective cohort analysis.

Aaron Jones, Susan E Bronskill, Gina Agarwal, Hsien Seow, David Feeny, Andrew P Costa

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aaron JonesDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Jones, Agarwal, Seow, Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; ICES (Bronskill), Toronto, Ont.; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Bronskill), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Departments of Family Medicine (Agarwal), Oncology (Seow), Economics (Feeny) and Medicine (Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. jonesa13@mcmaster.ca.
Susan E BronskillDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Jones, Agarwal, Seow, Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; ICES (Bronskill), Toronto, Ont.; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Bronskill), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Departments of Family Medicine (Agarwal), Oncology (Seow), Economics (Feeny) and Medicine (Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Gina AgarwalDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Jones, Agarwal, Seow, Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; ICES (Bronskill), Toronto, Ont.; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Bronskill), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Departments of Family Medicine (Agarwal), Oncology (Seow), Economics (Feeny) and Medicine (Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Hsien SeowDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Jones, Agarwal, Seow, Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; ICES (Bronskill), Toronto, Ont.; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Bronskill), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Departments of Family Medicine (Agarwal), Oncology (Seow), Economics (Feeny) and Medicine (Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
David FeenyDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Jones, Agarwal, Seow, Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; ICES (Bronskill), Toronto, Ont.; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Bronskill), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Departments of Family Medicine (Agarwal), Oncology (Seow), Economics (Feeny) and Medicine (Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Andrew P CostaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Jones, Agarwal, Seow, Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; ICES (Bronskill), Toronto, Ont.; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Bronskill), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Departments of Family Medicine (Agarwal), Oncology (Seow), Economics (Feeny) and Medicine (Costa), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Public Health Ontario · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobust and integrated primary care and home care are core components of effective chronic disease management in the community. We described the primary care and other health system use by a cohort of home care patients.

methodsWe conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients who received publicly funded home care in Ontario, Canada, from October 2014 to September 2016. Primary outcomes were primary care physician visits including coordination with home care, home visits and visits after hours or on weekends or holidays within 6 months of a home care assessment. Secondary outcomes included specialist physician visits, emergency department use, home care visits and placement in a long-term care home. Multivariable models examined associations between patient characteristics and subsequent primary care use.

resultsThere were 226 054 home care patients in our cohort, with a median age of 81 years. Following assessment, home care patients visited primary care physicians at a rate of 0.78 visits per month. Physician-based home care coordination codes were billed for 3.9% of patients. Primary care home visits were received by 13.1% of patients, and 15.1% of patients used primary care after hours or on weekends or holidays.

interpretationPatients receiving publicly funded home care frequently visited a primary care physician. Physician billings for coordination between primary care and home care were infrequent but were more common in interprofessional primary care practices. Physician home visits were more likely to be received by the oldest and most functionally impaired patients, suggesting that home visits are responsive to the needs of home care patients.

Identifiers

PMID31123086
PMCPMC6533106
OpenAlexW2944911812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.