INTRODUCTION Whereas low-acuity ambulatory patients have been cited as a source of emergency department (ED) overuse or misuse, it is argued that patient evaluation in the ED may end up being more cost-effective. The COVID-19 pandemic has complicated the debate by shifting primary care practices (PCP) and walk-in clinics (WIC) towards telemedicine, a consultation modality presumed to be more efficient under the circumstances.
OBJECTIVES To compare, from patient and healthcare system perspectives, the value of the care received in person or by telemedicine in EDs, WICs and PCPs by ambulatory patients presenting with one the following complaints: 1) Acute diarrheas; 2) Sore throat; 3) Nasal congestion; 4) Increased or purulent nasal discharge; 5) Earache or ear discharge; 6) Shortness of breath; 7) Cough; 8) Increased or purulent sputum; 9) Muscle aches; 10) Anosmia; 11) Dysgeusia; 12) Burning urine; 13) Urinary frequency and urgency; 14) Dysuria; 15) Limb traumatic injury; 16) Cervical, thoracic or lumbar back pain; and 17) Fever
METHODS The investigators shall perform a multicenter prospective cohort study in Québec and Ontario. In phase 1, a time-driven activity-based costing method will be applied at each of 14 study sites. This method uses time as a cost driver to allocate direct costs (e.g. medication), consumable expenditures (e.g. needles, office supplies), overhead (e.g. building maintenance) and physician charges to patient care. The cost of a care episode thus will be proportional to the time spent receiving the care. At the end of this phase, a list of care process costs (e.g. triage, virtual medical assessment) will be generated and used to calculate the cost of each consultation during phase 2, in which a prospective cohort of patients will be monitored in order to compare the care received in EDs, WICs and PCPs. Research assistants will recruit eligible participants during the initial in-person or virtual visit. They will complete the collection using local medical records and provincial databases. Participants will be contacted by phone for follow-up questionnaires 1-3 and 8-14 days after their visit. Patients shall be aged 18 years and over, ambulatory throughout the care episode and have one of the targeted presenting complaints mentioned above. The estimated sample size is 3,906 patients. The primary outcome measurement for comparing the three types of care setting will be patient-reported outcome scores. The secondary outcome measurements will be: 1) patient-reported experience scores; 2) mean costs borne wholly by patients; 3) the proportion of return visits to any site 3 and 7 days after the initial visit; 4) the mean cost of care; 5) the incidences of mortality, hospital admissions and placement in intensive care within 30 days following the initial visit; 6) adherence to practice guidelines. Multilevel generalized linear models will be used to compare the care setting types and an overlap weights approach will be applied to adjust for confounding due to age, sex, gender, ethnicity, comorbidities, registration with a family physician, socioeconomic status and perceived severity of illness.
EXPERTISE This research project brings together a strong team with expertise in emergency and primary care, pneumonology, performance assessment, biostatistics, health economics, patient-oriented research, knowledge translation, administration and policymaking.
IMPORTANCE The endpoint of our program will be for policymakers, patients and care providers to be able to determine the most appropriate care setting for the management of ambulatory emergency conditions, based on the value of care associated with each alternative.
aged 18 years and over;
seen in person or via telemedicine in an ED, a walk-in clinic, or the primary care practice where they are registered;
ambulatory during the entire visit or consultation;
acute diarrheas, defined as at least one day (24h) reported with three or more loose or liquid stools in the last seven days;
None
Our assessment will focus on patients presenting with acute ambulatory conditions, which share the common feature of being potentially treatable in EDs, walk-in clinics or primary care practices.
Cohort
Prospective
On-site recruitment (information and consent) following a random sampling recruitment schedule
Other interventionA trained research assistant in collaboration with local clerks at each site will screen eligible patients after on-site registration or online scheduling, but prior to assessment by a physician, based on included presenting complaints. The research assistant or member of the care team, depending on the local rules, will approach the potentially eligible participants and present them the research project and information consent form. If the patient agrees to participate and is eligible, they will sign the information and consent form and the research assistant will take their vital signs (for onsite participants only).
First phone call 1-3 days after the initial visit
Other interventionOnce the patient has been discharged, a research assistant will call the patient within 72 hours following the initial visit. This phone call will allow to i) ensure that gender, ethnicity, comorbidities and disposition plans are fully documented; and ii) use our patient-reported experience measure tool and administer a questionnaire on motivation for choosing one care setting over the other. Motivation will be classified in the 6 domains of the Conceptual Model of Emergency Department Use (Uscher-Pines et al. 2019). Participants will be asked to specify whether their choice of care setting was based on accessibility, convenience, their perception of the severity of illness, their beliefs and knowledge regarding these care settings, referral/advice from a care professional or an acquaintance, or on costs.
Second phone call 8-14 days after the initial visit
Other interventionA follow-up phone call will be made to all participants 8 days after the initial visit to evaluate primary and secondary outcome metrics. Patient-reported outcome (primary) and cost measures will be completed by the participants at this moment.
Median PROM-ED scores
The adapted PROM-ED provides a measurement of patient-reported outcome expressed as scores for symptom relief, reassurance and having a plan for care. Responses for each dimension are aggregated reported as a percentage, with a higher percentage signifying better health outcomes according to the patient
Patient-reported experience measure (PREM) scores
The PREM evaluates the patient's view of care delivery and measures various dimensions of patient experience (e.g., attitude of providers). The main question for this primary outcome measure will be: "Would you recommend this place to your friends and family"? Most PREM questions are on a 5-level Likert scale.
Mean cost of disease for patients (CoPaQ)
The adapted CoPaQ measures patients' and caregivers' out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., travel) and indirect costs (e.g., loss of income).
Incidence of return visit
Proportion of patients returning to any ED or outpatient clinic at 72 h and 7 days after the initial visit. Return visit occurrences will be identified via provincial physician billing databases.
Mean cost of care - Health care system perspective
Cost per care episode from the public payer's perspective calculated by summing the costs of all care processes delivered to a patient during the initial visit plus the costs of return visits and/or admissions at 72 hours and 7 days. Costs will be measured with a time-driven activity-based costing method with data extracted from electronic medical records review and provincial billing databases.
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
Simon Berthelot
Lead sponsor
CHU de Quebec-Universite Laval
Sponsor institution
