Literature DB >> 34077332

Differences between recorded diagnoses of patients of an emergency department and office-hours primary care doctors: a register-based study in a Finnish town.

Mika Lehto1,2, Katri Mustonen2, Marko Raina1, Timo Kauppila2,3,4.   

Abstract

To determine the extent to which it is possible to provide continuity of primary care for those who visit Emergency Departments (EDs) we studied how recorded diagnoses in primary care differ, depending on whether the patient is met in an ED or a primary care office-hours practice. In the present, 12-year follow-up study a report generator of the Electronic Health Record-system provided monthly figures for the number of different recorded diagnoses using the International Classification of Diagnoses (10thedition, ICD-10) and the total number of ED doctors and office-hour visits to General Practitioners (GPs). The 20 most common diagnoses covered 48.1% of the visits with recorded diagnoses to the office hour GPs and 45.9% of the visits to the doctors of the ED. Of these 20 diagnoses, 10 were common in both systems. These 10 diagnoses constituted about 30% of the diagnoses given by ED doctors. Furthermore, five out of the six most common diagnoses were the same in the ED and office-hours practices. The doctors in EDs and office-hour GPs treat quite similar patient material. This may provide organisational ways to reorganise the work of primary care and to guarantee continuity of care for those who may benefit from it.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Continuity of care; diagnose; electronic medical health record; electronic reminder; emergency department; primary care; recording

Year:  2021        PMID: 34077332      PMCID: PMC8174484          DOI: 10.1080/22423982.2021.1935593

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Circumpolar Health        ISSN: 1239-9736            Impact factor:   1.228


Introduction

Continuity of care has been reported to be essential for the successful treatment of older patients in primary care [1,2]. Continuity of care has been suggested to be one of the main tools with which primary care supports the welfare of its patients [3]. Continuity of care seldom occurs if treatment is strongly based on EDs [4-6].

Background

There are patients whose diagnoses should be treatable in primary care without emergency facilities and who benefit if their health problems are treated with continuity of care by their primary health care provider [6,7]. To optimise the functions of primary care, attention should be paid to putative qualitative differences and similarities in the contents of the work, including diagnostics, of primary care office-hours general practitioners (GPs) and doctors in primary care EDs, both of which take care of unselected patients [8,9]. Modern electronic health records (EHR) require the recording of diagnoses into the system, and this allows us to study how recorded diagnoses in primary care differ, depending on whether the patient is met in an ED or in an office-hours practice. The information obtained provides some relevant insight into the issue of how patient groups differ between EDs and office-hours primary care. Knowing the extent to which cases diagnosed in EDs are treatable in primary care may allow us to plan cooperation between these two partners and enhance the continuity of care in primary health care [6,7].

Methods

The present work is a retrospective longitudinal quasi-experimental study in the primary health care of the fourth largest city in Finland. This study was performed in the primary care ED-system (described in detail earlier in 8 and 9) and office-hours GP practices in Vantaa city, where in 2008 there were about 200,000 inhabitants. Finnish primary health care is mostly non-profit, and municipalities, which fund this activity with taxes, also maintain the electronic health record systems. Office-hour activities are performed in municipal health centres. From 2002 to 2011 Vantaa followed a so-called “own doctor system” where every inhabitant of Vantaa had a named personal primary care GP in his/her own health centre. Between 2012 and 2014, this personal GP was provided only to those who were over 75 years old, or to patients who had a recorded diagnosis of chronic disease or had visited a primary care physician more than three times during the preceding year. The ED system had two departments. The first evaluation was usually performed by the primary care ED system and if treatment in secondary care was necessary the patients were referred to the ED of the university clinic of Helsinki University (HUS) in the Peijas or Meilahti hospitals. Thus, the low acuity patients came first to the primary care ED system of the city of Vantaa. The diagnostic equipment in the primary care ED in Vantaa was almost at the level of the adjacent secondary care ED (Peijas) which meant that the primary care physicians had abundant possibilities to make diagnoses in the EDs. Both office-hours medical officers and outsourced physicians who were all primary care physicians served as staff in the ED. As a complementary, profit-driven system there is a well-equipped but expensive private primary health care system which is not equally available to all Finnish citizens. It is funded by insurances, employers (occupational health) or patients’ own money and it takes care of a small part of the population [9]. The data of all patient visits to the physicians of Vantaa primary care ED and office-hours practices were obtained from the Graphic Finstar EHR system (GFS, Logica LTD, Helsinki, Finland). GFS provided a specific place in the EHR where the appropriate diagnosis codes of the 10th version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) could be entered during the patients’ visits to the doctors of the ED and GPs. The system assisted the doctors in finding a proper diagnosis code or allowed the doctor to use the right code for the desired diagnosis directly, as described in detail earlier [10,11] This study was carried out directly from the patient register without identifying the patients or ED doctors. The register keepers (the health authorities of Vantaa) and the scientific ethical board of Vantaa City (TUTKE) granted permission (VD/8059/13.00.00/2016) to carry out the study. The report generator of the GFS-system provided monthly figures for the number of different recorded diagnoses and the total number of ED doctor and GP visits. This made it possible to calculate percentages for the recording of diagnoses without identifying individual doctors or patients. For analysis, the ICD-10-diagnoses were collected to an accuracy of three digits. Distributions of the primary diagnoses recorded in the ED system and office-hours practices were the main outcome for analysis in the present study. The 20 most common diagnoses were analysed in detail. The proportion of the visits with recorded diagnoses in both practices was the secondary outcome. In February 2008, an electronic reminder (ER) was installed in the GFS system. After that time, the reminders were always active till the end of the follow-up period (December 2014). The GFS-system prompted the ED doctors to enter a diagnosis every time they wanted to close a case [10,11] The follow-up period started in February 2002 and ended in December 2014. In February 2015, the primary care ED was totally outsourced to Helsinki University Hospital (HUS) due to a general restructuring of the local ED system in the HUS-area. The obtained data were analysed by comparing the recording of the diagnoses during the follow-up period. The comparisons of the proportions of the 20 most common diagnoses in EDs against office-hours practices were performed with Χ2-test. The comparisons of yearly prevalence of those 10 ICD-10-diagnoses which were most common in both the ED and office-hour practices were performed using paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank-test. Differences in the process of recording diagnoses were studied with Two-Way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni test. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

Results

In the ED, there were altogether 605,000 recorded visits and 350,134 of these visits had a recorded diagnosis. In the office-hours practices, these figures were 2,473,715 and 1,527,867, respectively. Thus, during the follow-up 61.8% of the visits to the office-hours GPs and 57.8% to the doctors of the ED were marked with an ICD-10-diagnosis. The 20 most common diagnoses covered 48.1% of the visits with recorded diagnoses in the case of the office-hour GPs, and 45.9% in the case of the doctors in the ED (Tables 1 and 2). Of these 20 ICD-10- diagnoses, acute upper respiratory infections of multiple and unspecified sites (J06), dorsalgia (M54), acute bronchitis (J20), conjunctivitis (H10), acute sinusitis (J01) and other soft tissue disorders, not elsewhere classified (M79) were more often recorded in office-hours practices (all P < 0.001, Tables 1 and 2). One hundred most commonly recorded diagnoses in the ED. ICD-10 codes, numbers of cases and percentage of recorded diagnoses are presented One hundred most commonly recorded diagnoses in office-hours GPs’ practices. ICD-10 codes, numbers of cases and percentage of recorded diagnoses are presented Ten of the 20 most commonly recorded diagnoses from each list were found in practices of both office-hours GPs and doctors in the ED. In the ED, 104,176 visits resulted in one of these 10 diagnoses. This represents a proportion of 29.7% of all the visits with a recorded diagnosis, and 17.2% of all the visits to the ED in total. In the office-hours practices, 501,662 visits were recorded with one of these 10 diagnoses. This represents a proportion of 32.8% of all the visits with a recorded diagnosis, and 20.3% of all the visits to office-hours practices in total. Among these 10 diagnoses, the absolute number of diagnosed patients in each diagnosis category was consistently higher in office-hours practices than in the ED (Table 3). Five out of the six most-commonly recorded diagnoses were the same in both ED and office-hours practices. The main diagnoses with a higher proportion of ICD-10-diagnoses recordings in the ED than in the office-hours practices were abdominal and pelvic pain, other gastroenteritis and colitis of infectious and unspecified origin, and acute tonsillitis. The remaining diagnoses from the list of 20 most commonly recorded in the ED were pain in throat and chest (N = 11,238 or 0.73% of the recorded diagnoses in the office-hours practices), abnormalities in breathing (N = 7177, 0.47%), malaise and fatigue (N = 6030, 0.39%), cystitis (N = 5738, 0.38%), and mental and behavioural disorder due to use of alcohol (N = 2992, 0.2%). Minor trauma diagnoses, such as dislocation, sprain and strain of joints and ligaments to ankle and foot (N = 9639, 0.63%), fracture of forearm (N = 4009, 0.26%), open wound of wrist and hand (N = 3249, 0.21%) and open wound of head (N = 2465, 0.16%) were also more frequently recorded in the ED (see Tables 1 and 2 for comparison).
Table 3.

Comparisons of yearly prevalence of the 10 most often recorded diagnoses common to both ED and office-hours practices. Mean±Standard Deviation or Median (25%-75% Interquartile Range) are shown. ** stands for p < 0.01 or *** for p < 0.001 in paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank-test (if the median is shown as an estimate)

ICD-CodeDiagnosisOffice-Hour GPs N % of visits with diagnosis % of all visitsED doctors N % of visits with diagnosis % of all visits
J06Acute upper respiratory infections of multiple and unspecified sites10,926 ± 2073 9.86 ± 1.95 5.78 ± 1.281568 ± 652*** 6.04 ± 2.59*** 3.29 ± 0.74***
M54Dorsalgia6244 ± 1422 5.64(4.84–6.33) 3.31 ± 0.871065 ± 221*** 4.24(3.47–4.70)*** 2.36 ± 0.56***
H66Suppurative and unspecified otitis media4638 ± 979 4.16 ± 0.77 2.46 ± 0.591209 ± 383*** 4.71 ± 1.72 2.57 ± 0.37
J01Acute sinusitis3853 ± 477 3.62 ± 1.12 2.03 ± 0.29723 ± 224*** 1.63 ± 1.18*** 0.81 ± 0.42***
J20Acute bronchitis3709 ± 732 3.46 ± 1.04 1.96 ± 0.42716 ± 376*** 2.79 ± 1.49** 1.47 ± 0.45**
R10Abdominal and pelvic pain2666 ± 1268 2.17 ± 0.31 1.43 ± 0.721296 ± 566*** 4.66 ± 1.27*** 3.13 ± 1.89***
H10Conjunctivitis2493 ± 646 2.21 ± 0.38 1.32 ± 0.38423 ± 145*** 1.68 ± 0.72** 0.90 ± 0.24**
M79Other soft tissue disorders, not elsewhere classified1991 ± 1272 1.55 ± 0.52 1.07 ± 0.71347 ± 241*** 1.20 ± 0.66*** 0.87 ± 0.72***
A09Other gastroenteritis and colitis of infectious and unspecified origin1076 ± 148 1.10 ± 0.33 0.57 ± 0.08532 ± 121*** 2.02 ± 0.43*** 1.18 ± 0.28***
J03Acute tonsillitis950(839–1169) 0.92 ± 0.29 0.52 ± 0.11351(265–593)*** 1.78 ± 1.10** 0.89 ± 0.31**
Comparisons of yearly prevalence of the 10 most often recorded diagnoses common to both ED and office-hours practices. Mean±Standard Deviation or Median (25%-75% Interquartile Range) are shown. ** stands for p < 0.01 or *** for p < 0.001 in paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank-test (if the median is shown as an estimate) There were occasional years when the rate of recording diagnoses was higher in one or other of the studied practices (p < 0,001, time X practice-interaction, Two-Way ANOVA). In the years 2003, 2004, 2005 the percentage of visits with recorded diagnoses was higher in the ED than in the office-hours practices (p < 0.05). In the years 2007, 2008 and 2014 this percentage was higher in the office-hours practices than in the ED (p < 0.05). There was, however, no general difference in the rate of recording diagnoses in visits to office-hour GPs or doctors of EDs (for practice-factor, P = 0.158). The recording of diagnoses was enhanced after the years 2002–2007, e.g., after implementing ERs, in both practices studied (for time-factor, P < 0.001, Figure 1).
Figure 1.

Yearly proportions of visits with recorded diagnosis in the ED and in office-hours practices 2002–2014. Mean and 95% Confidence Intervals (brackets) are shown

Yearly proportions of visits with recorded diagnosis in the ED and in office-hours practices 2002–2014. Mean and 95% Confidence Intervals (brackets) are shown

Discussion

The most commonly recorded diagnoses were practically the same in the ED and office-hours practices. There were some diagnoses, mostly concerning minor traumas, which were primarily recorded in the ED but not to the same extent in the office-hours practices. Certain symptomatic diagnoses (group-R in ICD-10-classification) were also more often recorded in the ED. The ERs enhanced recording of diagnoses equally well in the ED and office-hours practices. Although data from the private sector are missing, the data of the present work are comprehensive. It is also quite extensive and therefore it compensates many putative biases of this type of study. It contains every diagnosis recorded in office-hours visits to GPs or ED doctors between 2002 and 2014. Although the data are relatively old, they are still the most relevant that can be obtained in Finland because reasons to visit an ED of GP and/or diagnoses are not often recorded in Finnish primary care. In fact, more than one-third of the encounters had no diagnosis code in the present study. This is not unusual in Finnish primary care. According to the very latest official Finnish statistics [12] less than two-thirds of visits to Finnish primary health care include the reason for the visit or the diagnosis. Furthermore, the reason for the visit is not recorded in structural manner and therefore this data is difficult to analyse. Naturally, the present data does not exclude the possibility that the given diagnosis is not adequate, as has been suggested to be the case in about 15% of the primary care doctor consultations [13]. There is always a slight possibility that internal validity of diagnoses varies when comparing those made in the ED and office-hours practices. Using International Classification for Primary Care (ICPC) might also give a slightly different distribution in diagnostics. However, Finnish doctors in primary care do not frequently use ICPC. We do not know the ultimate reason. One factor could be that training of physicians specialised in general practicing (called yleislääketieteen erikoislääkäri in Finnish) takes also place in secondary and tertiary health care. ICD-10 is solely used in specialised health care. Furthermore, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (KELA), the main financing institute of Finnish health care, uses mainly ICD-10-codes. Therefore, ICD-10 may be more used than ICPC in Finnish primary care. The analysis was carried out at a 3-digit aggregated level of ICD-10 and this caused some loss of details in the data. Considering the accuracy of the ICD-10-code we had to make a compromise to keep the sizes of the different diagnosis-related groups adequate for statistical comparisons. The lack of data about individual doctors and patients is also a flaw of this study. The lack of this data inhibits us from drawing conclusions about whether there were doctors who regularly recorded inappropriate diagnoses despite the ERs. Furthermore, recording diagnoses does not necessarily mean that the clinician would take any actions to treat the problem he/she observed [14]. Thus, treating some of the diagnosed cases in the other of the settings studied here may be suboptimal for some patients. The present results can with certainty be applied only to primary health care. Furthermore, patients will often self-select to office-hours primary care if they perceive a minor problem and to the ED, if major. Thus, the patient-perceived acuity and severity are not always the same although, in the end, the diagnosis itself may be. Furthermore, we do not know to which extent the patients are the same in the EDs and office-hours practices. R-codes in the ICD-10-system were recorded more often in the ED than in the office-hours practices. The physicians of the ED have greater time pressure in several aspects than those in the office-hours practices. It is possible that the reason for excessive use of R-codes in the ED could be that the physicians tried to find those who were severely ill and required more specific diagnoses for acute treatment. If they found out that the patient’s case did not require emergency actions they did not necessarily perform very specific diagnostics but aimed to guide the patient to the office-hours physicians. Thus, they left more refined diagnostics to office-hours colleagues who had more time and who were responsible for continuing with the treatment in any case if the problem was not totally solved in the ED. According to Finnish guidelines for GPs [15], almost all of the 10 most commonly recorded diagnoses in the ED and office-hours practices, except severe cases of abdominal and pelvic pain, might have been treatable solely in the office-hours practices. As continuity of care is seldom applied in EDs when compared with office-hours primary care [4-6], organising distribution of work differently between these two health care providers might enhance this continuity [4,16]. It is not only the continuity of care by certain individual care providers which matters but also provider-adjusted regularity of the contacts [17]. To support this view, a large global study (34 countries during the years 2011 to 2013) found that adequate access to primary care decreased ED visits [18]. Similarly, better access to primary care decreased the use of EDs by older adults in a large US study [19]. Functionally adequate primary care may also improve the efficacy of ED functions as strong and advanced Dutch primary care prevented long ED stays in that country, in comparison with other western countries [20]. Thus, better communication and planning between EDs and primary care might improve both continuity and quality of care [21,22]. This means better communication in the redirecting of patients and division of labour and in transferring of individual patient data. Disregarding the putative organisational improvements in enhancement of functions of office-hours primary care, there will always be some persons who do not appreciate the possibility for continuity of care provided by primary health care. There are reports suggesting that the preference shown by patients for using EDs is not necessarily always caused by lack of primary care nor by the time of day that the complaint began [23]. It may thus be that EDs may also have “customers of their own” and that those patients are not likely to use ordinary daytime primary health care services for various miscellaneous reasons [8,24]. These reasons may be, for example, social [25] or related to the location of the ED [26,27]. Simple convenience factors may also increase the use of EDs [27]. According to the present study, the majority of patients visiting the doctors of EDs and office-hours GPs consists of quite similar patient material. The present data based on recorded diagnoses suggest that maximally about 30% of the visits treated in the ED could be left to the office-hours GPs where continuity of care could be better guaranteed [4-6]. Thus, part of ED treatments could be performed by PCPs as well, but this should be validated in prospective studies in the future.
Table 1.

One hundred most commonly recorded diagnoses in the ED. ICD-10 codes, numbers of cases and percentage of recorded diagnoses are presented

DiagnosisICD-10N%DiagnosisICD-10N%
Acute upper respiratory infections of multiple and unspecified sitesJ0620,3815,8Syncope and collapseR5515490,4
Abdominal and pelvic painR1016,8434,8Pain, not elsewhere classifiedR5215430,4
Suppurative and unspecified otitis mediaH6615,7174,5Otitis externaH6015320,4
DorsalgiaM5413,8454,0Haemorrhage from respiratory passagesR0415260,4
Open wound of headS0194012,7Convulsions, not elsewhere classifiedR5615000,4
Acute bronchitisJ2093062,7UrticariaL5014970,4
Other gastroenteritis and colitis of infectious and unspecified originA0969172,0Shoulder lesionsM7514620,4
Mental and behavioural disorder due to use of alcoholF1068792,0Acute tubulo-interstitial nephritisN1014570,4
Pain in throat and chestR0765201,9Dislocation, sprain and strain of joints and ligaments of kneeS8314360,4
Dislocation, sprain and strain of joints and ligaments at ankle and foot levelS9361601,8Dislocation, sprain and strain of joints and ligaments of shoulder girdleS4314300,4
Open wound of wrist and handS6159271,7Viral and other specified intestinal infectionsA0814010,4
CystitisN3059191,7CellulitisL0313980,4
Acute tonsillitisJ0357851,7Other dorsopathies, not elsewhere classifiedM5313930,4
ConjunctivitisH1054991,6Atopic dermatitisS2013710,4
Acute sinusitisJ0153751,5Other headache syndromesG4413580,4
Other soft tissue disorders, not elsewhere classifiedM7945081,3Atrial fibrillation and flutterI4812600,4
Intracranial injuryS0642401,2Superficial injury of lower legS8112060,3
Malaise and fatigueR5340781,2Problems related to lifestyleZ7211600,3
Abnormalities of breathingR0636941,1Other functional intestinal disordersK5911470,3
Fracture of forearmS5236721,0Disorders of vestibular functionH8111350,3
Nonsuppurative otitis mediaH6536051,0Fracture of rib(s), sternum and thoracic spineS2210850,3
Dizziness and giddinessR4235161,0Foreign body on external eyeT1510660,3
Urinary tract infection, site not specifiedN3934751,0Heart failureI509960,3
Pneumonia, organism unspecifiedJ1833611,0Angina pectorisI209920,3
HeadacheR5132210,9EpilepsyG409800,3
Depressive episodeF3230620,9SchizophreniaF209390,3
Fracture at wrist and hand levelS6230550,9Open wound of ankle and footS919360,3
Maltreatment syndromesT7428880,8DyspepsiaK309230,3
Superficial injury of wrist and handS6027680,8Tachycardia, unspecifiedR009140,3
Acute laryngitis and tracheitisJ0427600,8Reaction to severe stress, and adjustment disordersF439130,3
ErysipelasA4626690,8Calculus of kidney and ureterN208930,3
Acute pharyngitisJ0226300,8Internal derangement of kneeM238890,3
Fever of other and unknown originR5026150,7Superficial injury of forearmS508510,2
Other anxiety disordersF4126050,7Phlebitis and thrombophlebitisI808430,2
Dislocation of fingerS6322920,7Open wound of forearmS518130,2
Fracture of lower leg, including ankleS8221930,6Delirium, not induced by alcohol and other psychoactive substancesF058110,2
AsthmaJ4520240,6Superficial injury of abdomen, lower back and pelvisS307990,2
Fracture of shoulder and upper armS4220090,6Otalgia and effusion of earH927900,2
MigraineG4319190,5Other disorders of fluid, electrolyte and acid-base balanceE877670,2
Superficial injury of lower legS8018760,5Oedema, not elsewhere classifiedR607510,2
Nausea and vomitingR1118160,5Diverticular disease of small intestine with perforation and abscessK577420,2
Adverse effects, not elsewhere classifiedT7817950,5Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute lower respiratory infectionJ447180,2
Superficial injury of ankle and fooS9017700,5KeratitisH166920,2
Fracture of foot, except ankleS9217400,5Injury of Achilles tendonS866860,2
Other cardiac arrhythmiasI4916760,5Dislocation, sprain and strain of joints and ligaments at neck levelS136840,2
Essential (primary) hypertensionI1016680,5CholelithiasisK806690,2
Superficial injury of headS0015940,5Other enthesopathiesM776650,2
Cutaneous abscess, furuncle and carbuncle of faceL0215860,5HaemorrhoidsI846620,2
Influenza with pneumonia, virus not identifiedJ1115830,5Bacterial pneumonia, not elsewhere classifiedJ156620,2
CoughR0515590,4Superficial injury of shoulder and upper armS406580,2
Table 2.

One hundred most commonly recorded diagnoses in office-hours GPs’ practices. ICD-10 codes, numbers of cases and percentage of recorded diagnoses are presented

DiagnosisICD-10N%DiagnosisICD-10N%
Acute upper respiratory infections of multiple and unspecified sitesJ06142,0399,3HaemorrhoidsI8462050,4
DorsalgiaM5481,1745,3Fever of other and unknown originR5061190,4
Suppurative and unspecified otitis mediaH6660,2883,9Malaise and fatigueR5360300,4
Acute sinusitisJ0150,0893,3Medical observation and evaluation for suspected diseases and conditionsZ0358470,4
Acute bronchitisJ2048,2193,2CystitisN3057380,4
Essential (primary) hypertensionI1047,3733,1Other functional intestinal disordersK5955720,4
Abdominal and pelvic painR1034,6602,3Localised swelling, mass and lump of skin and subcutaneous tissueR2254890,4
Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitusE1132,7402,1Other cardiac arrhythmiasI4952170,3
ConjunctivitisH1032,4062,1Seborrhoeic keratosisL8252090,3
Depressive episodeF3227,0401,8DyspepsiaK3050790,3
Other soft tissue disorders, not elsewhere classifiedM7925,8771,7Examination and observation for unspecified reasonZ0449260,3
Gonarthrosis [arthrosis of knee]M1723,7211,6Synovitis and tenosynovitisM6548200,3
Shoulder lesionsM7522,8431,5ErysipelasA4648110,3
AsthmaJ4520,5241,3Pneumonia, organism unspecifiedJ1847680,3
CoughR0516,9791,1DermatophytosisB3547240,3
Other dorsopathies, not elsewhere classifiedM5315,2691,0Other disorders of urinary systemN3946240,3
Other gastroenteritis and colitis of infectious and unspecified originA0913,9940,9Gastro-oesophageal reflux diseaseK2144140,3
Other anxiety disordersF4113,8470,9Fibroblastic disordersM7243910,3
Otitis externaH6013,0900,9Dislocation, sprain and strain of joints and ligaments at wrist and hand levelS6343310,3
Acute tonsillitisJ0312,9160,8Fracture at wrist and hand levelS6242550,3
Examination and encounter for administrative purpoZ0212,1050,8Hordeolum and chalazionH0041960,3
Other enthesopathiesM7711,9530,8Other hypothyroidismE0340880,3
Pain in throat and chestR0711,2380,7Other chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseJ4440820,3
Acute pharyngitis, unspecifiedJ0296720,6Other inflammation of vagina and vulvaN7640210,3
Dislocation, sprain and strain of joints and ligaments at ankle and foot levelS9396390,6Fracture of forearmS5240090,3
Other joint disorders, not elsewhere classifiedM2595280,6Hyperplasia of prostateN4040030,3
Atopic dermatitisL2093920,6Coxarthrosis [arthrosis of hip]M1638700,3
Soft tissue disorders related to use, overuse and pressureM7093500,6Oedema, not elsewhere classifiedR6037140,2
Nonsuppurative otitis mediaH6591610,6GoutM1036990,2
Nonorganic sleep disordersF5189190,6Dislocation, sprain and strain of joints and ligaments of kneeS8336410,2
CellulitisL0387750,6ImpetigoL0135960,2
Vasomotor and allergic rhinitisJ3086480,6Superficial injury of wrist and handS6035410,2
HeadacheR5185070,6Diseases of capillariesI7835390,2
Atrial fibrillation and flutterI4880720,5AcneL7035040,2
Other headache syndromesG4480630,5Adverse effects, not elsewhere classifiedT7833710,2
Acute laryngitis and tracheitisJ0480460,5Superficial injury of lower legS8033470,2
Disorders of lipoprotein metabolism and other lipidaemiasE7877260,5Enthesopathies of lower limb, excluding footM7633370,2
Other dermatitisL3076360,5Open wound of wrist and handS6132490,2
Internal derangement of kneeM2375750,5Recurrent depressive disorderF3332360,2
Influenza with pneumonia, virus not identifiedJ1175130,5Superficial injury of ankle and footS9031820,2
General examination and investigation of persons without complaint and reported diagnosisZ0072080,5Disorders of vestibular functionH8131250,2
Reaction to severe stress, and adjustment disordersF4371930,5UrticariaL5031140,2
DyspnoeaR0671770,5Seropositive rheumatoid arthritisM0530860,2
Cutaneous abscess, furuncle and carbuncle of faceL0271610,5Mononeuropathies of upper limbG5630520,2
Dizziness and giddinessR4271300,5PsoriasisL4030460,2
Pain, not elsewhere classifiedR5269690,5Nail disordersL6030200,2
Other special examinations and investigations of persons without complaint or reported diagnosisZ0166350,4Otalgia and effusion of earH9230200,2
MigraineG4363600,4Angina pectorisI2030140,2
Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitusE1063040,4Mental and behavioural disorders due to use of alcoholF1029920,2
Chronic ischaemic heart diseaseI2562700,4Melanocytic naeviD2229840,2
  25 in total

1.  General practitioners' use of ICPC diagnoses and their correspondence with patient record notes.

Authors:  Geir Lindquist Sporaland; Gunnar Mouland; Bjørn Bratland; Ellen Rygh; Harald Reiso
Journal:  Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen       Date:  2019-10-14

2.  Validation of an algorithm for categorizing the severity of hospital emergency department visits.

Authors:  Dustin W Ballard; Mary Price; Vicki Fung; Richard Brand; Mary E Reed; Bruce Fireman; Joseph P Newhouse; Joseph V Selby; John Hsu
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Emergency department workload increase: dependence on primary care?

Authors:  Kim E Tranquada; Kurt R Denninghoff; Melanie E King; Stephen M Davis; Peter Rosen
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 1.484

4.  A comparison of the effects of electronic reminders and group bonuses on the recording of diagnoses in primary care: a longitudinal follow-up study.

Authors:  Tuomo Lehtovuori; Marko Raina; Lasse Suominen; Timo Kauppila
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2017-12-06

5.  The effect on the patient flow in a local health care after implementing reverse triage in a primary care emergency department: a longitudinal follow-up study.

Authors:  Timo Kauppila; Katri Seppänen; Juho Mattila; Johanna Kaartinen
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 2.581

6.  The effect of electronic reminders on the recording of diagnoses in primary care: A quasi-experimental before and after study.

Authors:  Tuomo Lehtovuori; Anna M Heikkinen; Marko Raina; Timo Kauppila
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2020-04-28

7.  Impact of family practice continuity of care on unplanned hospital use for people with serious mental illness.

Authors:  Jemimah Ride; Panagiotis Kasteridis; Nils Gutacker; Tim Doran; Nigel Rice; Hugh Gravelle; Tony Kendrick; Anne Mason; Maria Goddard; Najma Siddiqi; Simon Gilbody; Rachael Williams; Lauren Aylott; Ceri Dare; Rowena Jacobs
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Demand for emergency health service: factors associated with inappropriate use.

Authors:  Maria L V Carret; Anaclaudia G Fassa; Ichiro Kawachi
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-08-18       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  The impact of neighborhood deprivation on patients' unscheduled out-of-hours healthcare seeking behavior: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Sara Willems; Wim Peersman; Philippe De Maeyer; Walter Buylaert; Jan De Maeseneer; Peter De Paepe
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 2.497

10.  Impact of a well-developed primary care system on the length of stay in emergency departments in the Netherlands: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Wendy A M H Thijssen; Nicole Kraaijvanger; Dennis G Barten; Marleen L M Boerma; Paul Giesen; Michel Wensing
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  1 in total

1.  Development of the use of primary health care emergency departments after interventions aimed at decreasing overcrowding: a longitudinal follow-up study.

Authors:  Marja Liedes-Kauppila; Anna M Heikkinen; Ossi Rahkonen; Mika Lehto; Katri Mustonen; Marko Raina; Timo Kauppila
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2022-06-14
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.