Cited by 60Electronic Health Records SystemsEmergency and Acute Care StudiesHealthcare Systems and Technology

Impact of an electronic link between the emergency department and family physicians: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Lang, E.·2006·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Electronic information exchange is believed to improve efficiency and reduce resource utilization. We developed a Web-based standardized communication system (SCS) that enables family physicians to receive detailed reports of their patients' care in the emergency department. We sought to determine the impact of the SCS on measures of resource utilization in the emergency department and family physician offices. METHODS: We used an open 4-period crossover cluster-randomized controlled design. During 2 separate 10-week intervention phases, family physicians received detailed reports of their patients' emergency department visits over the Internet, and in the alternating control phases they received a 1-page copy of the emergency department notes by mail. The primary outcome was the number of repeat visits to the emergency department within 14 days of the initial visit. Secondary outcomes included duplication of test and specialty consultation requests by the emergency and family physician. Outcomes were measured using the hospital database and questionnaires sent to the family physicians. RESULTS: A total of 2022 patient visits to the emergency department from 23 practices were used in the study. Use of the SCS failed to reduce the number of repeat visits to the emergency department within 14 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-1.51) and 28 days (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.8-1.27). There was no significant duplication of requests for diagnostic tests between the emergency and family physician during the intervention and control phases (24 v. 22, p = 0.93), but there was significantly greater duplication in specialty consultation requests in the intervention phase than in the control phase (20 v. 8, p = 0.049). INTERPRETATION: An electronic link between emergency and family physicians did not result in a significant reduction in resource utilization at either service point. Investments in improved electronic information exchange between emergency departments and family physician offices may not be substantiated by a reduction in resource utilization.

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 · 10.1503/cmaj.050698

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a Canadian crossover cluster randomized study (n=2,022 patient visits), availability of emergency department information to family physicians did not result in duplication of requests for diagnostic tests, but rather a greater duplication in specialty consultation requests.

    “The results indicated that the availability of this information did not result in duplication of requests for diagnostic tests, but rather a greater duplication in specialty consultation requests.”
  • In that Canadian study, whereas family physicians in the intervention group appreciated having the information, there was no evidence that it resulted in reduced resource use.

    “Whereas family physicians in the intervention group appreciated having this information, there was no evidence that it resulted in reduced resource use.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lang, E.
Affiliations
Jewish General Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Lang, E.
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2006-01-31
Volume
174
Issue
3
Pages
313-318
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2118347789
Cited by
60
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
9.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • McGill University
  • Jewish General Hospital
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
health information exchange, emergency department, general practitioners, online communication, resource utilization (health care), repeat emergency department visits, continuity of care, care coordination
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Data Collection, Emergency Service, Hospital, Family Practice, Female, Health Services, Humans, Information Services, Interprofessional Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Office Visits, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Cross-Over Studies, Internet

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