HOME HELP CONTACT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Résumé Full Text Full Text (PDF) Rapid Responses: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Liddy, C. Articles by Gaboury, I. PubMed Articles by Liddy, C. Articles by Gaboury, I. Related Collections Résumés de recherche

Frequency of in-office emergencies in primary care

Heather Dreise
Third-year medical student at the University of Ottawa

Isabelle Gaboury, PhD
Consulting biostatistician and a research investigator for the Clinical Research Unit at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa

Correspondence: Dr Clare Liddy, University of Ottawa, C.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Élisabeth Bruyère Research Institute, 43 Bruyère St, Ottawa, ON K1N 5C8; e-mailCLiddy{at}bruyere.org

OBJECTIVE To quantify the frequency and types of in-office emergencies seen by FPs.

DESIGN A retrospective descriptive analysis of the frequency and types of in-office emergencies seen by FPs was done using the City of Ottawa Emergency Medical Services database.

SETTING Community medical offices in the Ottawa, Ont, region during a 3-year period (2004 to 2006).

PARTICIPANTS All patients for whom an ambulance was called to a medical office or clinic during the study period.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Number of emergency calls from FPs’ offices, primary complaints, seasonal variation, distance to the nearest emergency facility, and patients’ demographic characteristics.

RESULTS A total of 3033 code 04 (life-threatening) emergency calls were received from FPs’ offices during the study period. Demographic analysis of the calls showed that 91.3% of calls were regarding adult patients with an average age of 51.5 years. There was an overall statistically significant difference in the sex of the patients presenting (P < .001), but it was attributable to calls about genitourinary emergencies, which were almost all for women. The most common type of emergency reported was cardiovascular complaints. Of the 992 cardiovascular emergencies, 74.3% were complaints of ischemic chest pain.

CONCLUSION There is a great burden on the health care system from emergency calls, with continued unpreparedness from FPs. Clearly, FPs must take seriously the risk of being unprepared for in-office emergencies. Dissemination strategies must be developed so that the guidelines that have been developed can be effectively implemented in FP offices across the country.