Clare L Atzema1, Bing Yu2, Noah Ivers3, Paula Rochon4, Douglas S Lee5, Michael J Schull1, Peter C Austin2. 1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont. ; Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. ; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ont. 2. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont. 3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont. ; Department of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. ; Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ont. 4. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont. ; Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. ; Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ont. 5. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont. ; Division of Cardiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. ; University Health Network, Toronto, Ont.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuity of care has been shown to be poor following in-hospital discharge, and there are substantially fewer resources to facilitate follow-up care arrangements after discharge from an emergency department. Our objective was to assess the frequency, timeliness and predictors for obtaining follow-up care following discharge from an emergency department in Ontario with a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving all patients discharged from the 157 nonpediatric emergency departments in Ontario, who received a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation between 2007 and 2012. We determined the frequency of follow-up care with a family physician, cardiologist or internist within 7 (timely) and 30 days of the emergency department visit, and assessed the association of emergency and family physician characteristics, including primary care model type, with obtaining timely follow-up care. RESULTS: Among 14 907 patients discharged from Ontario emergency departments with a new, primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, half (n = 7473) had timely follow-up care. At 30 days, 2678 patients (18.0%) still had not obtained follow-up care. Among emergency and family physician factors, lack of a family physician had the largest independent association with acquiring timely follow-up care (odds ratio [OR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.69). Using patients with a family physician belonging to a primarily fee-for-service remuneration model as the comparison group, patients with a family physician belonging to a capitation-based Family Health Network, as part of a Family Health Team, were less likely to receive timely follow-up care (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.86), as were those whose family physician belonged to the same model type that was not part of a Family Health Team (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.97). INTERPRETATION: Only half of the patients who were discharged from an emergency department in Ontario with a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation were seen within 7 days of discharge. The most influential factor was having a family physician; patients with a family physician being remunerated via primarily fee-for-service methods were more likely to be seen within 7 days than those who were reimbursed through a primarily capitation model. Systems-wide solutions are needed to ensure timely follow-up care is available for all patients with chronic diseases.
BACKGROUND: Continuity of care has been shown to be poor following in-hospital discharge, and there are substantially fewer resources to facilitate follow-up care arrangements after discharge from an emergency department. Our objective was to assess the frequency, timeliness and predictors for obtaining follow-up care following discharge from an emergency department in Ontario with a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving all patients discharged from the 157 nonpediatric emergency departments in Ontario, who received a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation between 2007 and 2012. We determined the frequency of follow-up care with a family physician, cardiologist or internist within 7 (timely) and 30 days of the emergency department visit, and assessed the association of emergency and family physician characteristics, including primary care model type, with obtaining timely follow-up care. RESULTS: Among 14 907 patients discharged from Ontario emergency departments with a new, primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, half (n = 7473) had timely follow-up care. At 30 days, 2678 patients (18.0%) still had not obtained follow-up care. Among emergency and family physician factors, lack of a family physician had the largest independent association with acquiring timely follow-up care (odds ratio [OR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.69). Using patients with a family physician belonging to a primarily fee-for-service remuneration model as the comparison group, patients with a family physician belonging to a capitation-based Family Health Network, as part of a Family Health Team, were less likely to receive timely follow-up care (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.86), as were those whose family physician belonged to the same model type that was not part of a Family Health Team (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.97). INTERPRETATION: Only half of the patients who were discharged from an emergency department in Ontario with a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation were seen within 7 days of discharge. The most influential factor was having a family physician; patients with a family physician being remunerated via primarily fee-for-service methods were more likely to be seen within 7 days than those who were reimbursed through a primarily capitation model. Systems-wide solutions are needed to ensure timely follow-up care is available for all patients with chronic diseases.
Authors: P Dorian; W Jung; D Newman; M Paquette; K Wood; G M Ayers; J Camm; M Akhtar; B Luderitz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Patricia Jabre; Véronique L Roger; Mohammad H Murad; Alanna M Chamberlain; Larry Prokop; Frédéric Adnet; Xavier Jouven Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David J Gladstone; Melanie Spring; Paul Dorian; Val Panzov; Kevin E Thorpe; Judith Hall; Haris Vaid; Martin O'Donnell; Andreas Laupacis; Robert Côté; Mukul Sharma; John A Blakely; Ashfaq Shuaib; Vladimir Hachinski; Shelagh B Coutts; Demetrios J Sahlas; Phil Teal; Samuel Yip; J David Spence; Brian Buck; Steve Verreault; Leanne K Casaubon; Andrew Penn; Daniel Selchen; Albert Jin; David Howse; Manu Mehdiratta; Karl Boyle; Richard Aviv; Moira K Kapral; Muhammad Mamdani Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Clare L Atzema; Cynthia A Jackevicius; Alice Chong; Paul Dorian; Noah M Ivers; Ratika Parkash; Peter C Austin Journal: CMAJ Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Haran Yogasundaram; Douglas C Dover; Nathaniel M Hawkins; Finlay A McAlister; Shaun G Goodman; Justin Ezekowitz; Padma Kaul; Roopinder K Sandhu Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 6.106