Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31185921›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

Substitution of hospital care with Primary Care Plus: differences in referral patterns according to specialty, specialist and diagnosis group.

Paul Smeele, Mariëlle E A L Kroese, Marieke D Spreeuwenberg, Dirk Ruwaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. 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
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effect of COVID-19 on health system integration in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021
    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

4 authors.

Paul SmeeleDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. p.smeele@amc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-8642-5891
Mariëlle E A L KroeseDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marieke D SpreeuwenbergDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Dirk RuwaardDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary Care Plus (PC+) is an intervention where patients consult specialists in a primary care setting outside the hospital. Two facilities have been founded in the city of Maastricht, the Netherlands. Main aim is to achieve substitution of hospital care with primary care and hence reduce costs. The objective of this study is to evaluate referral patterns per specialty, specialist and diagnosis group, as input for deliberations to optimise substitution.

methodsProspectively collected referral data after PC+ consultations between November 2014 and March 2016 was analysed for eight participating specialties. Primary outcomes were differences in referral patterns per specialty, specialist and diagnosis group. Absolute counts and percentages were recorded for categorical variables, means and standard deviations for continuous variables. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

resultsIn total 4536 patients were seen in PC+; 3132 (69.0%) were referred back to the general practitioner (GP), whereas 1275 (28.1%) were referred to secondary care. Referral information of 130 (2.9%) patients was unknown. Large differences in referral numbers to secondary care after PC+ consultation were found between specialties (from 8.6% (gynaecology) to 43.8% (orthopaedic surgery)), specialists (14.5 to 65.2%) and diagnosis groups (11.1 to 93.4%).

conclusionsWide variation in referral numbers to secondary care between specialties, specialists and diagnosis groups exists after PC+ consultations. This data indicates that deliberation and further research is needed in order to optimize substitution initiatives like PC+.

Indexed as

General PractitionersSpecializationAdultAgedDelivery of Health CareDermatologyFemaleGynecologyHumansInternal MedicineMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsNeurologyOphthalmologyOrthopedicsCollaborationIntegrated carePrimary carePrimary Care PlusReferralsSubstitution

Identifiers

PMID31185921
PMCPMC6560871

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.