Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 351

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Effect of Continuity of Care on Emergency Department Use

Gill, J. M.·2000·Archives of Family Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether continuity of care with an individual health care provider is associated with the number of hospital emergency department (ED) visits in a statewide Medicaid population. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study based on a 100% sample of Delaware Medicaid claims for 1 year (July 1, 1993, to June 30, 1994). Continuity with a single provider during the year was computed for each participant. SETTING: The state of Delaware. PARTICIPANTS: Continuously enrolled Medicaid clients aged 0 to 64 years who had made at least 3 physician office visits during the study year (N = 11,474). INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Likelihood of making a single ED visit or multiple ED visits during the study year. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, continuity is associated with a significantly lower likelihood of making a single ED visit (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.95), and is even more strongly associated with a lower likelihood of making multiple ED visits (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that high provider continuity is associated with lower ED use for the Medicaid population. This suggests that strategies to improve continuity of care may result in lower ED use and possibly reduced health care costs. Such strategies may be more acceptable than current managed care policies that attempt to control costs by denying access to emergency care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archfami.9.4.333

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Gill, J. M.
Venue
Archives of Family Medicine
Published
2000-04-01
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
333-338
ISSN
1063-3987 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126571024
Cited by
351
References
0
FWCI
23.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.