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.
