Cost Evaluation of the Ontario Virtual Urgent Care Pilot Program: Population-Based, Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Ontario, Canada, introduced a virtual urgent care (VUC) pilot program to provide alternative access to urgent care services and reduce the need for in-person emergency department (ED) visits for patients with low acuity health concerns. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the 30-day costs associated with VUC and in-person ED encounters from an MoH perspective. METHODS: Using administrative data from Ontario (the most populous province of Canada), a population-based, matched cohort study of Ontarians who used VUC services from December 2020 to September 2021 was conducted. As it was expected that VUC and in-person ED users would be different, two cohorts of VUC users were defined: (1) those who were promptly referred to an ED by a VUC provider and subsequently presented to an ED within 72 hours (these patients were matched to in-person ED users with any discharge disposition) and (2) those seen by a VUC provider with no referral to an in-person ED (these patients were matched to patients who presented in-person to the ED and were discharged home by the ED physician). Bootstrap techniques were used to compare the 30-day mean costs of VUC (operational costs to set up the VUC program plus health care expenditures) versus in-person ED care (health care expenditures) from an MoH perspective. All costs are expressed in Canadian dollars (a currency exchange rate of CAD $1=US $0.76 is applicable). RESULTS: We matched 2129 patients who presented to an ED within 72 hours of VUC referral and 14,179 patients seen by a VUC provider without a referral to an ED. Our matched populations represented 99% (2129/2150) of eligible VUC patients referred to the ED by their VUC provider and 98% (14,179/14,498) of eligible VUC patients not referred to the ED by their VUC provider. Compared to matched in-person ED patients, 30-day costs per patient were significantly higher for the cohort of VUC patients who presented to an ED within 72 hours of VUC referral ($2805 vs $2299; difference of $506, 95% CI $139-$885) and significantly lower for the VUC cohort of patients who did not require ED referral ($907 vs $1270; difference of $362, 95% CI 284-$446). Overall, the absolute 30-day costs associated with the 2 VUC cohorts were $18.9 million (ie, $6.0 million + $12.9 million) versus $22.9 million ($4.9 million + $18.0 million) for the 2 in-person ED cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This costing evaluation supports the use of VUC as most complaints were addressed without referral to ED. Future research should evaluate targeted applications of VUC (eg, VUC models led by nurse practitioners or physician assistants with support from ED physicians) to inform future resource allocation and policy decisions.

Impact of an intergenerational program to improve loneliness and social isolation in older adults initiated at the time of emergency department discharge: study protocol for a three-arm randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Social isolation and loneliness (SIL) worsens mortality and other outcomes among older adults as much as smoking. We previously tested the impact of the HOW R U? intervention using peer support from similar-aged volunteers and demonstrated reduced SIL among older adults discharged from the emergency department (ED). Generativity, defined as "the interest in establishing and guiding the next generation," can provide an alternative theoretical basis for reducing SIL via intergenerational programs between members of younger and older generations. The current protocol will examine the impact of younger intergenerational volunteers providing the HOW RU? METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, we will compare the following three arms: (1) the standard same-generation peer support HOW R U? intervention, (2) HOW R U? intervention delivered by intergenerational volunteers, and (3) a common wait-list control group. Outcome assessors will be blinded to the intervention. Trained volunteers will deliver 12 weekly telephone support calls. We will recruit participants ≥ 70 years of age with baseline loneliness (six-item De Jong loneliness score of 2 or greater) from two EDs. Research staff will assess SIL, depression, quality of life, functional status, generativity, and perceived benefit at baseline, at 12 weeks, and 24 weeks post-intervention. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize participants receiving the intergenerational intervention will show improved outcomes compared to the control group and peer support HOW R U? INTERVENTION: We also hypothesize that participants with higher perceptions of generativity will have greater reductions in SIL than their lower generativity counterparts. Aging is experienced diversely, and social interventions combatting associated SIL should reflect that diversity. As part of a program of research following the Obesity-Related Behavioral Intervention Trials (ORBIT) model, the findings of this RCT will be used to define which intervention characteristics are most effective in reducing SIL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05998343 Protocol ID:21-0074E. Registered on 24 July 2023.

Emergency physician gender and head computed tomography orders for older adults who have fallen.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians vary in their computed tomography (CT) scan usage. It remains unclear how physician gender relates to clinical practice or patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the association between physician gender and decision to order head CT scans for older emergency patients who had fallen. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational cohort study conducted in 11 hospital emergency departments (EDs) in Canada and the United States. The primary study enrolled patients who were 65 years and older who presented to the ED after a fall. The analysis evaluated treating physician gender adjusted for multiple clinical variables. Primary analysis used a hierarchical logistic regression model to evaluate the association between treating physician gender and the patient receiving a head CT scan. Secondary analysis reported the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for diagnosing intracranial bleeding by physician gender. RESULTS: There were 3663 patients and 256 physicians included in the primary analysis. In the adjusted analysis, women physicians were no more likely to order a head CT than men (OR 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.61). In the secondary analysis of 2294 patients who received a head CT, physician gender was not associated with finding a clinically important intracranial bleed. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant association between physician gender and ordering head CT scans for older emergency patients who had fallen. For patients where CT scans were ordered, there was no significant relationship between physician gender and the diagnosis of clinically important intracranial bleeding.

Randomized controlled trials in resuscitation.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a gold standard in research and crucial to our understanding of resuscitation science. Many trials in resuscitation have had neutral findings, questioning which treatments are effective in cardiac resuscitation. While it is possible than many interventions do not improve patient outcomes, it is also possible that the large proportion of neutral findings are partially due to design limitations. RCTs can be challenging to implement, and require extensive resources, time, and funding. In addition, conducting RCTs in the out-of-hospital setting provides unique challenges that must be considered for a successful trial. This article will outline many important aspects of conducting trials in resuscitation in the out-of-hospital setting including patient and outcome selection, trial design, and statistical analysis.

Evaluating the Reliability of a Remote Acuity Prediction Tool in a Canadian Academic Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There is increasing interest in harnessing artificial intelligence to virtually triage patients seeking care. The objective was to examine the reliability of a virtual machine learning algorithm to remotely predict acuity scores for patients seeking emergency department (ED) care by applying the algorithm to retrospective ED data. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of adult patients conducted at an academic tertiary care ED (annual census 65,000) from January 2021 to August 2022. Data including ED visit date and time, patient age, sex, reason for visit, presenting complaint and patient-reported pain score were used by the machine learning algorithm to predict acuity scores. The algorithm was designed to up-triage high-risk complaints to promote safety for remote use. The predicted scores were then compared to nurse-led triage scores previously derived in real time using the electronic Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (eCTAS), an electronic triage decision-support tool used in the ED. Interrater reliability was estimated using kappa statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: In total, 21,469 unique ED patient encounters were included. Exact modal agreement was achieved for 10,396 (48.4%) patient encounters. Interrater reliability ranged from poor to fair, as estimated using unweighted kappa (0.18, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.19), linear-weighted kappa (0.25, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.26), and quadratic-weighted kappa (0.36, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.37) statistics. Using the nurse-led eCTAS score as the reference, the machine learning algorithm overtriaged 9,897 (46.1%) and undertriaged 1,176 (5.5%) cases. Some of the presenting complaints under-triaged were conditions generally requiring further probing to delineate their nature, including abnormal lab/imaging results, visual disturbance, and fever. CONCLUSION: This machine learning algorithm needs further refinement before being safely implemented for patient use.

Impact of a peer-support programme to improve loneliness and social isolation due to COVID-19: does adding a secure, user friendly video-conference solution work better than telephone support alone? Protocol for a three-arm randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the implementation of physical distancing and self-isolation strategies worldwide. However, these measures have significant potential to increase social isolation and loneliness. Among older people, loneliness has increased from 40% to 70% during COVID-19. Previous research indicates loneliness is strongly associated with increased mortality. Thus, strategies to mitigate the unintended consequences of social isolation and loneliness are urgently needed. Following the Obesity-Related Behavioural Intervention Trials model for complex behavioural interventions, we describe a protocol for a three-arm randomised clinical trial to reduce social isolation and loneliness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, outcome assessor blinded, three-arm randomised controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of: (1) the HOspitals WoRking in Unity ('HOW R U?') weekly volunteer-peer support telephone intervention; (2) 'HOW R U?' deliver using a video-conferencing solution and (3) a standard care group. The study will follow Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials guidelines.We will recruit 24-26 volunteers who will receive a previously tested half day lay-training session that emphasises a strength-based approach and safety procedures. We will recruit 141 participants ≥70 years of age discharged from two participating emergency departments or referred from hospital family medicine, geriatric or geriatric psychiatry clinics. Eligible participants will have probable baseline loneliness (score ≥2 on the de Jong six-item loneliness scale). We will measure change in loneliness, social isolation (Lubben social network scale), mood (Geriatric Depression Score) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) at 12-14 weeks postintervention initiation and again at 24-26 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been granted by the participating research ethics boards. Participants randomised to standard care will be offered their choice of telephone or video-conferencing interventions after 12 weeks. Results will be disseminated through journal publications, conference presentations, social media and through the International Federation of Emergency Medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05228782.