The Right Care, for the Right Patient, at the Right Time, by the Right Provider: A Value-based Comparison of the Management of Ambulatory Patients With Acute Health Concerns in walk-in Clinics, Primary Care Physician Practices and Emergency Departments

August 9, 2024 updated by: Simon Berthelot

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.

Study Overview

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Estimated)

4000

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

      • Québec, Canada, G1J 0A4
      • Québec, Canada, G1V 4G2
        • Recruiting
        • Centre de recherche CHU de Québec - Université Laval
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Simon Berthelot, MD MSc FRCPC
    • Ontario
      • Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 2V7
        • Not yet recruiting
        • Kingston Health Sciences Centre
        • Contact:
      • Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 5E9
      • Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8L6
        • Not yet recruiting
        • Ottawa Hospital
        • Contact:
    • Quebec
      • Joliette, Quebec, Canada, J6E 5X7
      • Montréal, Quebec, Canada, H4J 1C5

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sampling Method

Probability Sample

Study Population

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.

Description

We shall include patients:

  1. aged 18 years and over;
  2. seen in person or via telemedicine in an ED, a walk-in clinic, or the primary care practice where they are registered;
  3. ambulatory during the entire visit or consultation;
  4. with one of the following presenting complaints:

    1. acute diarrheas, defined as at least one day (24h) reported with three or more loose or liquid stools in the last seven days;
    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;
    17. Fever.

We shall exclude patients:

  1. transported by ambulance;
  2. not covered by the provincial health insurance plan;
  3. having consulted for a similar problem in the previous 30 days since patients with refractory disease represent a population with different care needs.;
  4. living in a long-term healthcare facility or incarcerated;
  5. with cognitive impairment that prevents reliable answers to the research questions;
  6. receiving palliative care.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Emergency department
ED care for acute ambulatory conditions by physicians unfamiliar with the patients.
A 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).
Once 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.
A 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.
Walk-in clinics
In-person or virtual care in a walk-in clinic for acute ambulatory conditions by physicians unfamiliar with the patients. In-person and virtual care will be assessed together as part of the care offer in outpatient clinics, but separately as a sub-analysis.
A 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).
Once 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.
A 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.
Primary care practice
In-person or virtual care in a primary care clinic for acute ambulatory conditions (patients attached to a primary care practice, seen by their family physician or a colleague on a same-day appointment for urgent needs). In-person and virtual care will be assessed together as part of the care offer in outpatient clinics, but separately as a sub-analysis.
A 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).
Once 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.
A 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.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Median PROM-ED scores
Time Frame: At 7 days after the initial visit measured at the 8-14 day follow-up call
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
At 7 days after the initial visit measured at the 8-14 day follow-up call

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Patient-reported experience measure (PREM) scores
Time Frame: At the end of the initial visit measured at the 1-3 day follow-up call
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.
At the end of the initial visit measured at the 1-3 day follow-up call
Mean cost of disease for patients (CoPaQ)
Time Frame: At 7 days measured at the 8-14 day follow-up call
The adapted CoPaQ measures patients' and caregivers' out-of-pocket expenses (e.g., travel) and indirect costs (e.g., loss of income).
At 7 days measured at the 8-14 day follow-up call
Incidence of return visit
Time Frame: At 7 days after the initial 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.
At 7 days after the initial visit
Mean cost of care - Health care system perspective
Time Frame: At 72 hours and 7 days after the initial visit
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.
At 72 hours and 7 days after the initial visit
Incidences of admission/intensive care unit/mortality
Time Frame: At 7 and 30 days after the initial visit
Proportions of patients who were admitted to hospital or to the intensive care unit or died within 30 days after the initial visit. Obtained via electronic medical records review and provincial databases (Institut de la statistique du Québec and ICES).
At 7 and 30 days after the initial visit
Wait times
Time Frame: For the initial visit
Median/mean length of stay and time spent waiting to see a physician obtained via electronic medical records
For the initial visit
Incidence of oral corticosteroid prescription
Time Frame: For the initial visit
Proportion of patients with exacerbated asthma or COPD who received a prescription for oral corticosteroids. Obtained via electronic medical records
For the initial visit
Incidence of antibiotic or antiviral medication prescription
Time Frame: For the initial visit
Proportions of patients with URTI, otitis media, influenza or bronchitis who received a prescription for antibiotics or antiviral medication. Obtained via electronic medical records.
For the initial visit
Incidence of narcotic prescription
Time Frame: For the initial visit
Proportions of patients with cervical, thoracic and lumbar back pain who received a prescription for narcotics. Obtained via electronic medical records.
For the initial visit
Incidence of chest X-ray use
Time Frame: For the initial visit
Proportions of patients with URTI, bronchitis, asthma and back pain who had a chest X-ray performed. Obtained via electronic medical records.
For the initial visit
Incidence of spine X-ray, CT scan or MRI use
Time Frame: For the initial visit
Proportions of patients with back pain who had a spine X-ray, CT scan or a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed or prescribed. Obtained via electronic medical records.
For the initial visit
Compliance to guidelines on use of antibiotics
Time Frame: For the initial visit
Proportions of compliance to provincial recommendations of antibiotic prescriptions for pneumonia, tonsillitis, acute exacerbation of COPD and urinary tract infection. Obtained via electronic medical records.
For the initial visit
Incidence of diagnostic spirometry prescription
Time Frame: For the initial visit
Proportions of spirometry prescribed for long-term >40-year-old smokers (current or past) undiagnosed with COPD who present for an acute lower respiratory tract infection. Obtained via electronic medical records.
For the initial visit
Mean greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from patient transportation to consultation site
Time Frame: For the initial visit
Calculated following the Québec Ministry of Environment "Guide to quantifying greenhouse gas emissions". Fuel consumption (in liters) will be estimated from patient transport modality and travel distance (in km) between home and consultation site. GHS emissions in kg of CO2 equivalent will be calculated by multiplying fuel consumption (L) by the appropriate emission coefficient (kg CO2 eq./L) depending on the transport modality used (e.g. car, bus). Distance obtained at the 8-14 day follow-up call.
For the initial visit

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Mylaine Breton, PhD, Université de Sherbrooke
  • Principal Investigator: Simon Berthelot, MD MSc FRCPC CCMF(MU), CHU de Quebec-Universite Laval
  • Principal Investigator: Jason R. Guertin, PhD, Laval University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

June 15, 2023

Primary Completion (Estimated)

December 31, 2024

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 31, 2025

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

May 1, 2023

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

May 26, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

June 7, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

August 12, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 9, 2024

Last Verified

August 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Value trial

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Ambulatory Care

Subscribe