Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
Research ArticleResearch

Association between access to primary care and unplanned emergency department return visits among patients 75 years and older

Marc Afilalo, Xiaoqing Xue, Antoinette Colacone, Emmanuelle Jourdenais, Jean-François Boivin and Roland Grad
Canadian Family Physician August 2022, 68 (8) 599-606; DOI: https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.6808599
Marc Afilalo
Director of the Emergency Department at Jewish General Hospital in Montréal, Que, and Chair of the Department of Emergency Medicine at McGill University.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiaoqing Xue
Biostatistician and Research Coordinator in the Emergency Department at Jewish General Hospital.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: xiaoqing.xue@mail.mcgill.ca
Antoinette Colacone
Former Research Manager in the Emergency Department at Jewish General Hospital.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emmanuelle Jourdenais
Emergency physician at the Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean-François Boivin
Senior Investigator in the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research at Jewish General Hospital and Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Roland Grad
Associate Professor in the Department of Family Medicine in the Jewish General Hospital at McGill University.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • CFPlus
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objective To identify factors associated with unplanned return visits to the emergency department (ED) among the population aged 75 years and older. Moreover, it aims to determine the association between patients’ access to primary care and unplanned return visits.

Design Data were collected from structured interviews, administrative databases, and medical charts at the index visits, and follow-up telephone calls were made at 3 months.

Setting Emergency departments of the 3 tertiary care hospitals in Montréal, Que.

Participants Community-dwelling patients aged 75 years and older.

Main outcome measures Zero-inflated negative binomial regression analysis was conducted of unplanned return visits within 3 months. Rate ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs are presented.

Results During the study period, 4577 patients were identified, 2303 were recruited, and 1998 were retained for the analysis. Among the analysis sample, 33% were 85 and older, 34% lived alone, and 91% had a family physician. Before their ED visits, 16% of patients attempted to contact their family physicians. More than half of the patients reported having difficulty seeing their physicians for urgent problems, more than 40% had difficulty speaking with their family physicians by telephone, and more than one-third had difficulty booking appointments for new health problems. Within 3 months, 562 patients (28%) had made 894 return visits. Factors associated with a lower return visit rate included age 85 years and older (RR=0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96), less severe triage score (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), and hospitalization at the index visit (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90). Factors that resulted in a higher return visit rate were difficulty booking appointments for new problems with their family physicians (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.41), having had ED visits within the previous 6 months (RR=1.47; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.68), and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (RR=1.06; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11). Having had ED visits within the previous 6 months (OR=2.11; 95% CI 1.27 to 3.49), having a higher Charlson comorbidity index score (OR=1.41; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.68), and having received community care services (OR=3.00; 95% CI 0.95 to 9.53) also increased the odds of return visits.

Conclusion Although most people 75 years and older have a family physician, problems still exist in terms of timely access. Unplanned return visits to the ED are associated with having more comorbidities, having had previous ED visits, having already received community services, and having difficulty booking appointments with family physicians for new problems.

Worldwide it is reported that older persons are substantial users of emergency department (ED) medical services.1-5 In Canada, it is estimated that approximately 50% of those 75 years of age and older use emergency services.3 Moreover, compared with younger patients, older patients stay longer and have higher rates of ED visits, return visits, and hospital admissions.3,6

The number of unplanned ED return visits is an outcome often used as a measure of quality of care and is shown to be associated with increased functional decline or mortality.7 Research related to the magnitude of the problem, risk identification, and interventions to decrease recidivism is prevalent in the literature.8 However, a concern that has not received a lot of attention is how patient access to primary care resources may affect unplanned ED return visits.

Although it has been reported that 98% of older persons in Canada have a regular family doctor, their ability to get timely access in the form of a same-day or next-day appointment was among the lowest of 11 countries in the 2014 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey.9 Difficulty accessing primary care has been associated with higher or inappropriate ED use,10 while easy access has been associated with fewer ED visits, improvements in continuity of care, and greater patient satisfaction.11,12

This study primarily aims to determine the factors associated with unplanned return visits within 3 months of an index ED visit and, in particular, examine the association between patients’ access to primary care and unplanned return visits. Many research studies have focused on patients older than 65 years; however, as shown by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the number of patients aged 75 and older is increasing at a faster rate; this population is expected to double between 2017 and 2037.13 Therefore, we chose to conduct this study among patients aged 75 years and older living in autonomous residences.

METHODS

Study design and setting

This is a multicentre prospective observational study conducted at 3 tertiary adult teaching hospitals in Montréal, Que. One hospital is affiliated with McGill University and has 73,985 annual ED visits, of which 16% were from patients 75 years and older. The other 2 French hospitals are affiliated with the University of Montréal and have annual ED visits of 29,711 and 43,119. Of these visits, 16% and 11% were from patients in this age range, respectively. Patient recruitment occurred from 2012 to 2014. Research committees from the participating hospitals approved this study.

Selection of participants

Eligible patients were those 75 years and older visiting the EDs during the recruitment period, who lived in their own homes or in an autonomous residence (ie, for older persons who are physically and psychologically independent). Patients were excluded if they were unable to provide informed consent, they had a language barrier (ie, spoke neither English nor French), they were cognitively impaired, they failed the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire14 (defined as ≥5 errors out of 10), their visit was planned (eg, for imaging), or their visit led to prolonged hospitalization. Two research assistants worked on a predetermined schedule in the 3 hospitals to cover both weekday and weekend enrolment. The number of enrolment days at each site was proportional to the volume of patients 75 years and older at the specific site.

Date collection and outcomes

On the index ED visit, patients were asked to complete an index interview questionnaire. Three months later, patients were telephoned to respond to a follow-up questionnaire. All patient encounters were conducted in English or French. All unplanned return visits during the follow-up period were recorded; planned visits such as imaging, cast checks, dressing changes, direct referrals, and abnormal laboratory result follow-up were excluded.

Data were collected through patient interviews, medical chart reviews, and administrative databases (details in supplementary material, available from CFPlus*). The patients’ interview questionnaire included questions on access to health services, use of primary care services, perceived health status and living arrangements, the Barthel index of activities of daily living, and past medical history and health care resource utilization (to calculate the Identification of Seniors at Risk index and Charlson comorbidity index).15,16 We chose theIdentification of Seniors at Risk index out of many other screening risk tools because it is one of the most commonly used and it was developed in Canada. Patient demographic characteristics (eg, age, sex), clinical characteristics (eg, triage, arrival method), and discharge information (follow-up instructions) were obtained through medical charts or databases. At 3-month follow-up, patients were asked about their use of health care resources and any changes in living arrangement.

Return visit was the main outcome and it was measured in 2 ways: as a binary outcome (yes or no) and as a count outcome (the number of ED return visits within the 3 months before follow-up). This outcome was obtained from medical charts and from the follow-up questionnaire.

Sample size

Sample size was calculated with the aim of comparing return visits between patients who had difficulty accessing primary care versus those without difficulty. Based on literature and data from the participating hospitals, a 3-month return visit rate of 25% was expected. To detect a relative change of 25% (ie, an absolute change of 6.25% in return visit rate), at a significance level of .05 and with 80% power, 1622 patients would be required. Considering the correlation between primary care access variables versus other independent variables also associated with the outcome, we added a variance inflator of 1.15, resulting in a sample size of 1866 patients.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics (proportions; means with SDs) were used for the general characteristics of the patient population. Univariate analyses such as Embedded Image2 tests, Student t tests, or Poisson regression with a single independent variable were used to select factors associated with the outcome variables (binary and count) at a significance level of P<.1. Then, selected factors were retained for multivariable analyses. Since distribution of the number of return visits showed both excess zeros and overdispersion, we therefore considered the zero-inflated Poisson model and zero-inflated negative binomial model as the multivariable analyses of choice.17 Different models were compared using the Lagrange multiplier statistic, the Akaike information criterion, or the Vuong test, as appropriate.18,19 Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was chosen as the best model, where the logit model part (by logistic regression analysis) estimates the probability of return to the ED (ie, no excess zeros), while the count model part (by negative binomial regression analysis) estimates the rate of return visits to the ED. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) and rate ratios (RRs) and their associated 95% CIs.

RESULTS

During the study period 4577 patients aged 75 years and older who lived in autonomous residences were identified, of whom 41% were excluded and 9% declined to participate. Therefore, 2303 patients (50%) were recruited. At 3 months, 179 were deceased, 30 declined to continue participating, and 96 were withdrawn owing to loss to follow-up, transfer to other hospitals, admission to long-term care, or hospitalization in an acute care ward for more than 2 months following the index visit. Thus, 1998 patients (87%) were included in the data analysis (Figure 1). Within 3 months, 562 patients (28%) had revisited the ED for a total of 894 return visits (Figure 2).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1.

Flowchart of study patient recruitment and sample derivation

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2.

Distribution of no. of return visits within 3 mo

Table 1 shows the independent variables separated into subgroups. These subgroups included factors related to patient characteristics, factors related to access to primary care services, and factors pertaining to the index ED visit. Variables with asterisks indicate statistically significantly differences related to return visits either by logistic regression (with the binary outcome of having had a return visit or no return visit) or Poisson regression analyses (with the count outcome of number of return visits). Although most patients had a family physician (91%), only 16% contacted their family physicians before going to the ED. In addition, more than 50% reported having had difficulty seeing their physicians for urgent problems, more than 40% had difficulty reaching their family physicians by telephone, and more than one-third had difficulty booking appointments for new health problems.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Comparison of patients who returned to the ED vs those who did not return within 3 mo of the first ED visit: Percentages may not add to 100% owing to rounding.

For multivariable analysis, results from the zero-inflated negative binomial model are shown in Table 2. Table 2A shows factors that were associated with the number of return visits, while Table 2B shows factors that were associated with the binary outcome: having had a return visit or no return visit. Those who were 85 years or older (RR=0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96), had a lower-severity triage level (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), or were admitted during the index visit (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.90) had lower return visit rates. On the other hand, those who had difficulty booking appointments for new problems with their family doctors (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.41), had ED visits within the previous 6 months (RR=1.47; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.68), or had a higher Charlson comorbidity index score (RR=1.06; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11 for every 1-unit increase) had higher return visit rates. Factors that were associated with a higher likelihood of return visit were visits to the ED in the past 6 months (OR=2.11; 95% CI 1.27 to 3.49), increased Charlson comorbidity index score (OR=1.41; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.68 for every 1-unit increase), and having received help from local community services (OR=3.00; 95% CI 0.95 to 9.53).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Multiple variable analysis (zero-inflated negative binomial model): A) Negative binomial regression to model return visit rate and B) logistic regression to model odds of return to the ED (excess zeros).

A comparison between patients in the analysis and patients withdrawn after enrolment (excluding death) showed that the 2 groups are similar (supplementary table available from CFPlus*) except that more patients in the withdrawn group lived in autonomous residences and arrived at the ED by ambulance. The reason could be a lack of family help for these patients.

DISCUSSION

Our study found the unplanned return visit rate is 28% among patients 75 years and older living autonomously. Other research looking at return visits within 90 days found that, for patients aged 65 years and older, the return visit rate is around 30%,20-25 while for patients 75 years and older, the return visit rate varies. For example, a Swiss study25 found a 38% return visit rate, while a French study observed a 10% return visit rate.26 This disparity may be due to differences in health care systems or hospital settings.

An important objective of this study was to understand how patient access to primary care might influence unplanned return ED visits. We measured a host of different factors to evaluate patients’ access to primary care services and found the following statistically significant associations. First, we found that for patients receiving community health services (eg, wound care by nurses), the odds of unplanned return visits increased 3-fold. This may be owing to patients’ poor baseline health status that required more health resources.27 Also contributing to an increased return visit rate was difficulty in accessing a family doctor for new problems (19% increased risk). This result agrees with a survey in the general population that difficulty with access to family doctors increases the use of emergency medical services.10,12

It is also worth noting that although most patients reported having a family physician, very few patients had contacted their family physicians before presenting to the ED. Apart from the fact that it is not easy to access primary care (more than half reported having difficulty seeing their physicians for urgent problems within 2 days and more than one-third had difficulty calling or booking appointments for new health problems), another potential reason could be that patients assumed that they would not be able to reach their family physicians at the time of their ED visits. In fact, 45% of patients arrived at the ED outside of regular office hours, ie, outside weekdays between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM.

In addition, our study found that previous ED visits, higher comorbidity scores, and high severity of triage increased the risk of return visits. These findings are largely supported by the literature, mainly for those aged 65 and older.19,21,22,24 Within the same body of literature, only 1 study (targeting patients aged ≥65 years) stated that age is related to return visits, but in its analysis, age was determined a priori to be retained in the final model.20 In our analysis, we categorized patients into 2 groups: those aged 75 to 84 and those aged 85 and older; we found that patients aged 85 and older had a lower risk of revisiting the ED. Similar findings suggested that those 85 years and older are least likely to have short-term return ED visits (within 30 days) among patients aged 65 and older.5,7,28

Studies have shown there is an increasing trend in ambulatory care–sensitive conditions (ACSCs) among older patients visiting the ED,29 despite the definition of ACSCs not being suitable for use in the ED setting.30 Further research that investigates whether the patients at index ED visits and return visits can be classified as having ACSCs would be helpful in understanding the resources required in primary care and the importance of access to primary care.

Strengths and limitations

Our study has several important strengths. First, we recruited a large number of elderly patients from 3 different hospitals. Second, we recorded extensive amounts of reliable data from a variety of sources. For example, to ascertain patients’ comorbidities, we cross-checked this information using interview and medical charts.

One limitation of our study is that we excluded patients with language barriers. These patients may behave differently or be more likely to return to the ED owing to limited understanding of discharge instructions or difficulty communicating with their family physicians. A study funded by Health Canada suggests there is compelling evidence of the negative impact of language barriers on health care access and patient experience.31 Another limitation is that while many patients have been excluded or refused, we did not provide a comparison between enrolled and nonenrolled patients owing to the fact that there was not enough information about the nonenrolled patients.

Conclusion

Our study revealed that although most elderly patients have a family physician, they do have difficulty in terms of access to care. In addition to patient characteristics and index visit–specific factors, difficulty in accessing primary care was associated with a higher rate of return visits to the ED within an elderly population. Therefore, community-based programs that target patient education and improved access to primary care are necessary not only for reducing return visits to the ED, but also for continuity of care and patient satisfaction.

Notes

Editor’s key points

  • ▸ This study found the unplanned return emergency department (ED) visit rate is 28% among patients 75 years and older living autonomously.

  • ▸ For patients receiving community health services (eg, wound care by nurses), the risk of unplanned return visits increased by 3-fold. Also contributing to an increase in return visit rate was the difficulty in accessing a family doctor for new problems (19% increased risk). Although most patients reported having a family physician, very few patients had contacted their family physicians before presenting to the ED. More than half reported having difficulty seeing their physicians for urgent problems within 2 days and more than one-third had difficulty calling or booking appointments for new health problems.

  • ▸ Previous ED visits, higher comorbidity scores, and high severity of triage increased the risk of return visits. The analysis categorized patients into those aged 75 to 84 and those aged 85 and older; patients aged 85 and older had a lower risk of revisiting the ED.

Points de repère du rédacteur

  • ▸ Cette étude a constaté que le taux des visites de retour aux services d’urgence (à l’urgence) est de 28 % chez les patients de 75 ans et plus qui vivent de manière autonome.

  • ▸ Chez les patients qui recevaient des services de santé communautaires (p. ex. soins d’une plaie par une infirmière), le risque d’une visite de retour non planifiée à l’urgence triplait. Les difficultés à accéder à un médecin de famille pour de nouveaux problèmes constituaient un autre facteur de l’augmentation du taux de visites de retour (augmentation du risque de 19 %). Même si la plupart des patients disaient avoir un médecin de famille, très peu d’entre eux avaient communiqué avec elle ou lui avant de se présenter à l’urgence. Plus de la moitié d’entre eux ont signalé avoir de la difficulté à voir leur médecin de famille pour des problèmes urgents dans les 2 jours suivant l’appel, et plus du tiers avaient des problèmes à parler au médecin ou à prendre rendez-vous pour de nouveaux problèmes de santé.

  • ▸ Des visites antérieures à l’urgence, des scores de comorbidité plus élevés et une sévérité plus grande au triage augmentaient le risque d’un retour à l’urgence. L’analyse classait les patients entre les 75 à 84 ans et les 85 ans et plus; les patients de 85 ans et plus avaient le plus faible risque de retour à l’urgence.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Supplementary material on data collection is available from https://www.cfp.ca. Go to the full text of the article online and click on the CFPlus tab.

  • Contributors

    Dr Marc Afilalo, Xiaoqing Xue, Antoinette Colacone, Dr Jean-François Boivin, Dr Roland Grad, and Dr Emmanuelle Jourdenais contributed substantially to the study conception and design, funding application, data acquisition, analysis, and result interpretation, and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. Xiaoqing Xue performed the statistical analyses. Antoinette Colacone and Xiaoqing Xue drafted the manuscript; revised, edited, and prepared the manuscript for submission; and agree to act as guarantors of the work. All authors provided their approval of the final version of the manuscript.

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Cet article a fait l’objet d’une révision par des pairs.

  • Copyright © 2022 the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Lowthian J,
    2. Curtis A,
    3. Stoelwinder J,
    4. McNeil J,
    5. Cameron P.
    Emergency demand and repeat attendances by older patients. Intern Med J 2013;43(5):554-60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.
    1. Samaras N,
    2. Chevalley T,
    3. Samaras D,
    4. Gold G.
    Older patients in the emergency department: a review. Ann Emerg Med 2010;56(3):261-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Health care in Canada, 2011. A focus on seniors and aging. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2011.
  4. 4.
    1. Hughes JM,
    2. Freiermuth CE,
    3. Shepherd-Banigan M,
    4. Ragsdale L,
    5. Eucker SA,
    6. Goldstein K, et al.
    Emergency department interventions for older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc 2019;67(7):1516-25. Epub 2019 Mar 15.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Evans CS,
    2. Platts-Mills TF,
    3. Fernandez AR,
    4. Grover JM,
    5. Cabanas JG,
    6. Patel MD, et al.
    Repeated emergency medical services use by older adults: analysis of a comprehensive statewide database. Ann Emerg Med 2017;70(4):506-15.e3. Epub 2017 May 27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Leonard C,
    2. Bein KJ,
    3. Latt M,
    4. Muscatello D,
    5. Veillard AS,
    6. Dinh MM.
    Demand for emergency department services in the elderly: an 11 year analysis of the greater Sydney area. Emerg Med Australas 2014;26(4):356-60. Epub 2014 Jun 16.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. De Gelder J,
    2. Lucke JA,
    3. de Groot B,
    4. Fogteloo AJ,
    5. Anten S,
    6. Heringhaus C, et al.
    Predictors and outcomes of revisits in older adults discharged from the emergency department. J Am Geriatr Soc 2018;66(4):735-41. Epub 2018 Feb 28.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Karam G,
    2. Radden Z,
    3. Berall LE,
    4. Cheng C,
    5. Gruneir A.
    Efficacy of emergency department–based interventions designed to reduce repeat visits and other adverse outcomes for older patients after discharge: a systematic review. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2015;15(9):1107-17. Epub 2015 Jul 14.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    The state of seniors health care in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Medical Association; 2016. Available from: https://www.cma.ca/sites/default/files/2018-11/the-state-of-seniors-health-care-in-canada-september-2016.pdf. Accessed 2019 Sep 23.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Vidal Carret ML,
    2. Gastal Fassa AC,
    3. Rodrigues Domingues M.
    Inappropriate use of emergency services: a systematic review of prevalence and associated factors. Cad Saude Publica 2009;25(1):7-28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Hudec JC,
    2. MacDougall S,
    3. Rankin E.
    Advanced access appointments. Effects on family physician satisfaction, physicians’ office income, and emergency department use. Can Fam Physician 2010;56:e361-7. Available from: https://www.cfp.ca/content/cfp/56/10/e361.full.pdf. Accessed 2022 Jul 8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Van den Berg MJ,
    2. van Loenen T,
    3. Westert GP.
    Accessible and continuous primary care may help reduce rates of emergency department use. An international survey in 34 countries. Fam Pract 2016;33(1):42-50. Epub 2015 Oct 28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Canada’s seniors population outlook: uncharted territory. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2017. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/en/infographic-canadas-seniors-population-outlook-uncharted-territory#:~:text=Over%20the%20last%2040%20years,expected%20to%20number%2010.4%20million. Accessed 2022 Jul 10.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Pfeiffer E.
    A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1975;23(10):433-41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Yao JL,
    2. Fang J,
    3. Lou QQ,
    4. Anderson RM.
    A systematic review of the Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) tool for the prediction of adverse outcome in elderly patients seen in the emergency department. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8(4):4778-86.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Needham DM,
    2. Scales DC,
    3. Laupacis A,
    4. Pronovost PJ.
    A systematic review of the Charlson comorbidity index using Canadian administrative databases: a perspective on risk adjustment in critical care research. J Crit Care 2005;20(1):12-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hilbe JM.
    Negative binomial regression. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
  18. 18.↵
    1. Burnham KP,
    2. Anderson DR
    , editors. Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Vuong QH.
    Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica 1989;57(2):307-33.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Hastings SN,
    2. Oddone EZ,
    3. Fillenbaum G,
    4. Sloane RJ,
    5. Schmader KE.
    Frequency and predictors of adverse health outcomes in older Medicare beneficiaries discharged from the emergency department. Med Care 2008;46(8):771-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Moons P,
    2. De Ridder K,
    3. Geyskens K,
    4. Sabbe M,
    5. Braes T,
    6. Flamaing J, et al.
    Screening for risk of readmission of patients aged 65 years and above after discharge from the emergency department: predictive value of four instruments. Eur J Emerg Med 2007;14(6):315-23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Hastings SN,
    2. Schmader KE,
    3. Sloane RJ,
    4. Weinberger M,
    5. Goldberg KC,
    6. Oddone EZ.
    Adverse health outcomes after discharge from the emergency department—incidence and risk factors in a veteran population. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22(11):1527-31. Epub 2007 Sep 8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    1. Friedmann PD,
    2. Jin L,
    3. Karrison TG,
    4. Hayley DC,
    5. Mulliken R,
    6. Walter J, et al.
    Early revisit, hospitalization, or death among older persons discharged from the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2001;19(2):125-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. McCusker J,
    2. Cardin S,
    3. Bellavance F,
    4. Belzile E.
    Return to the emergency department among elders: patterns and predictors. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7(3):249-59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Graf CE,
    2. Giannelli SV,
    3. Herrmann FR,
    4. Sarasin FP,
    5. Michel JP,
    6. Zekry D, et al.
    Identification of older patients at risk of unplanned readmission after discharge from the emergency department—comparison of two screening tools. Swiss Med Wkly 2012;141:w13327.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Pereira L,
    2. Choquet C,
    3. Perozziello A,
    4. Wargon M,
    5. Juillien G,
    6. Colosi L, et al.
    Unscheduled-return-visits after an emergency department (ED) attendance and clinical link between both visits in patients aged 75 years and over: a prospective observational study. PLoS One 2015;10(4):e0123803.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Byrne M,
    2. Murphy AW,
    3. Plunkett PK,
    4. McGee HM,
    5. Murray A,
    6. Bury G.
    Frequent attenders to an emergency department: a study of primary health care use, medical profile, and psychosocial characteristics. Ann Emerg Med 2003;41(3):309-18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Minnee D,
    2. Wilkinson J.
    Return visits to the emergency department and related hospital admissions by people aged 65 and over. N Z Med J 2011;124(1331):67-74.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Hsieh VCR,
    2. Hsieh ML,
    3. Chiang JH,
    4. Chien A,
    5. Hsieh MS.
    Emergency department visits and disease burden attributable to ambulatory care sensitive conditions in elderly adults. Sci Rep 2019;9(1):3811.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Frick J,
    2. Möckel M,
    3. Muller R,
    4. Searle J,
    5. Somasundaram R,
    6. Slagman A.
    Suitability of current definitions of ambulatory care sensitive conditions for research in emergency department patients: a secondary health data analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7(10):e016109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Bowen S.
    The impact of language barriers on patient safety and quality of care. Ottawa, ON: Société Santé en français; 2015. Available from: http://www.reseausantene.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Impact-language-barrier-qualitysafety.pdf. Accessed 2020 Feb 19.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 68 (8)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 68, Issue 8
1 Aug 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Association between access to primary care and unplanned emergency department return visits among patients 75 years and older
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Association between access to primary care and unplanned emergency department return visits among patients 75 years and older
Marc Afilalo, Xiaoqing Xue, Antoinette Colacone, Emmanuelle Jourdenais, Jean-François Boivin, Roland Grad
Canadian Family Physician Aug 2022, 68 (8) 599-606; DOI: 10.46747/cfp.6808599

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Association between access to primary care and unplanned emergency department return visits among patients 75 years and older
Marc Afilalo, Xiaoqing Xue, Antoinette Colacone, Emmanuelle Jourdenais, Jean-François Boivin, Roland Grad
Canadian Family Physician Aug 2022, 68 (8) 599-606; DOI: 10.46747/cfp.6808599
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Notes
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • CFPlus
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Systematic assessment of opioid advertisements in general medical journals
  • Timely access to primary care in New Brunswick
  • Older persons living with dementia and their use of acute care services over 2 years in Alberta
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Collection française
    • Résumés de recherche

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2023 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire