Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Interprofessional Primary Care and Acute Care Hospital Use by People With Dementia: A Population-Based Study

Nadia Sourial, Tibor Schuster, Susan E. Bronskill, Claire Godard-Sebillotte, Jacob Etches and Isabelle Vedel
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2022, 20 (6) 512-518; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2881
Nadia Sourial
1Department of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2University of Montreal Hospital Research Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nadia.sourial@umontreal.ca
Tibor Schuster
3Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan E. Bronskill
4ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
5Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claire Godard-Sebillotte
6Division of Geriatric Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jacob Etches
4ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Isabelle Vedel
3Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
7Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

PURPOSE Interprofessional primary care has the potential to optimize hospital use for acute care among people with dementia. We compared 1-year emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations among people with dementia enrolled in a practice having an interprofessional primary care team with those enrolled in a physician-only group practice.

METHODS A population-based, repeated cohort study design was used to extract yearly cohorts of 95,323 community-dwelling people in Ontario, Canada, newly identified in administrative data with dementia between April 1, 2005 and March 31, 2015. Patient enrollment in an interprofessional practice or a physician-only practice was determined at the time of dementia diagnosis. We used propensity score–based inverse probability weighting to compare study groups on overall and nonurgent ED visits as well as on overall and potentially avoidable hospitalizations in the 1 year following dementia diagnosis.

RESULTS People with dementia enrolled in a practice having an interprofessional primary care team were more likely to have ED visits (relative risk = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05) and nonurgent ED visits (relative risk = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.28) compared with those enrolled in a physician-only primary care practice. There was no evidence of an association between interprofessional primary care and hospitalization outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS Interprofessional primary care was associated with increased ED use but not hospitalizations among people newly identified as having dementia. Although interprofessional primary care may be well suited to manage the growing and complex dementia population, a better understanding of the optimal characteristics of team-based care and the reasons leading to acute care hospital use by people with dementia is needed.

Key words:
  • dementia
  • interprofessional teams, primary care
  • health system performance
  • coordination of care
  • administrative data
  • population based
  • practice-based research
  • professional practice
  • delivery of health care

INTRODUCTION

Interprofessional primary care (IPC), a team-based primary care model whereby family physicians collaborate with nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, pharmacists, and other health professionals, has been touted as an ideal approach for dementia care.1-3 Because the management of dementia requires support from a wide range of clinicians,4,5 IPC may provide an integrated approach to counseling, managing comorbidities and medications, and coordinating care.5,6 Intervention studies have shown that IPC teams can improve care for people with dementia compared with physician-only primary care practices.2,7-10

Interprofessional primary care may also be an effective strategy to optimize acute care hospital use in people with dementia for whom this use frequently stems from acute problems or chronic conditions potentially preventable through high-quality primary care.11 Only a few intervention studies, however, have evaluated effects of IPC on emergency department (ED) and hospital outcomes in the dementia population, finding mixed results.2,8,12,13 One study showed a modest decrease in the number of ED visits,8 whereas 3 others found no meaningful differences.2,12,13 Aside from these intervention studies, to our knowledge, no study has examined the association between IPC and hospital use for acute care in people with dementia at a population level.

In Ontario, Canada, nearly 200 IPC teams have been introduced over the past 15 years; they currently serve 1 in 5 residents and are among the most comprehensive examples of IPC in North America.14,15 This setting offers an ideal opportunity to assess the potential association between IPC and hospital use for acute care among people with dementia at the population level.15 The aim of our study was therefore to compare acute care hospital use in people with dementia enrolled in an IPC practice with those enrolled in a physician-only group practice in Ontario.

METHODS

Setting and Data Sources

We extracted demographic, health, and service use data from the linked population-based health administrative data held at ICES in Ontario. ICES is an independent, nonprofit research institute whose legal status under Ontario’s health information privacy law allows it to collect and analyze health care and demographic data, without consent, for health system evaluation and improvement. ICES data are used regularly for health research.16

The ICES databases we used were the Registered Persons Database, which contains demographics such as age and sex; the Client Agency Program Enrolment and Corporate Provider Database to identify primary care enrollment and group affiliation; the Ontario Health Insurance Plan for physician claims; the Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database and National Ambulatory Care Reporting System for acute care hospital use and ED visits; the Ontario Drug Benefit and drug identification number databases for dispensed prescription drugs; the Home Care Database, Resident Assessment Instrument, Continuing Care Reporting System, and Ontario health care institutions for home and long-term care services; and the vital statistics on death database for place of death. Admissions to long-term care were also determined through the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and Ontario Drug Benefit databases. Details on data sources and operational definitions for variables in our study are available elsewhere.17 These data sets were linked using unique encoded identifiers and analyzed at ICES.

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of McGill University in Montreal, Canada (study no. A12-M42-18B). The use of the data in this project is authorized under section 45 of Ontario’s Personal Health Information Protection Act and does not require review by a research ethics board.

Design and Population

We used a repeated cohort design to extract separate yearly cohorts of community-dwelling older adults, aged 65 years and older, in Ontario, newly identified with dementia between April 1 and March 31 from 2005 to 2015.18 Newly identified people with dementia were considered those with dementia identified in the 2 years before the start of each yearly cohort. The date of dementia diagnosis was ascertained from a previously validated algorithm based on health administrative data and corresponded to the earliest date of any of 3 physician encounter criteria occurring in the 2 years before April 1 of each yearly cohort: (1) at least 1 hospitalization with a dementia diagnosis code, (2) at least 3 physician claims with a dementia diagnosis code at least 30 days apart, or (3) a prescription for dementia medication.19 Cohorts were followed for up to 1 year or until death or long-term placement. As such, cohort periods were distinct with no overlap in individuals between cohort years. We excluded individuals with missing age, sex, or health identification number; nonresidents of Ontario; and those living in a long-term care facility on the date of dementia diagnosis.

Exposure

Individuals enrolled in a Family Health Team (FHT) on the date of dementia diagnosis constituted the IPC group. FHTs are physician-directed medical practices wherein family physicians work in collaboration with a wide range of nonphysician health professionals who can include nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, pharmacists, dietitians, occupational therapists, and other clinicians, in order to provide timely, integrated, and comprehensive care to their patients. Team composition and roles vary from team to team based on capacity and needs, but the roles generally involve supporting physicians in conducting patient assessments, prevention, management, education, and health system navigation.20,21 Programs within FHTs vary depending on local community needs, but all generally focus on chronic disease management, health promotion, and disease prevention activities.

Individuals enrolled in a Family Health Organization (FHO), a physician-only primary care practice that is group based but does not use interprofessional care, constituted the non-IPC group. FHOs were selected as the comparator group among the set of other primary care models in Ontario because they were the most similar to FHTs in terms of patient, clinician, and remuneration characteristics—factors that have been previously discussed as major sources of confounding in comparisons between primary care models.22 FHOs were the largest among primary care models from which physicians could apply to transition their practice to an FHT and receive funding to recruit salaried health care professionals.22 Indeed, 54% of FHTs consist of FHOs that have transitioned into the team-based model.21 FHOs transitioning into FHTs retain the same structural elements, such as the payment model (blended capitation), use of electronic health records, extended hours, and access to 24/7 nurse telephone triage services; the only difference is the addition of nonphysician health care professionals. As a result, compared with FHOs, FHTs have more formalized chronic disease management plans and a focus on patient-centered care in line with the principles of patient-centered medical homes. Overall, FHTs and FHOs account for nearly one-half of registered patients in Ontario, with FHTs serving approximately 1 in 4 residents.

Enrollment in an FHT or FHO was determined through the Client Agency Program Enrolment and Corporate Provider Database, a database that identifies the primary care model in which an individual is enrolled. Given the difficulties in obtaining a family physician in Ontario as well as the formal rostering of patients to their family physicians, we considered the likelihood of patients switching between practice models over the 1-year follow-up period to be negligible.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the occurrence of at least 1 ED visit in the year following dementia diagnosis. As many of the most frequent reasons for ED visits in the dementia population relate to reasons potentially preventable through better access to primary care or disease management,11 we hypothesized that receiving care from an IPC team would result in reduced use of the ED. Secondary outcomes included at least 1 nonurgent ED visit, all-cause hospitalization, and a potentially avoidable hospitalization in the follow-up year. A nonurgent ED visit was defined as a less urgent visit (level 4) or nonurgent visit (level 5) according to the Canadian Acuity Triage Scale.23 A potentially avoidable hospitalization was defined as one for which the chief diagnosis was an ambulatory care–sensitive condition: asthma, cardiac heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hypertension, angina, or seizures.24

Potential Confounders and Other Covariates

We developed a causal diagram of the factors involved in the relationship between IPC and ED use to identify potential confounders and predictors (Supplemental Figure 1). The diagram was informed by the literature and consultations with more than 20 stakeholders, including representatives of people living with dementia, family physicians, and managers.

We obtained baseline data on covariates (age, sex, income, residence on the rural-urban spectrum, recent immigrant status, comorbidity, number of physician visits in the year before the date of dementia diagnosis, and prior resource use). Neighborhood-level income quintiles and residence (urban vs rural region) were determined from the 2011 national census.25 A rural area was defined as one having a community size of 10,000 people or fewer.26 Recent immigrant status was based on first registration into the Ontario health system within the past 10 years.25 We used the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group (version 10) system27 to measure comorbidity and extent of resource use, and comorbidity was categorized using the Aggregated Diagnosis Group: 0 to 5 (low comorbidity), 6 to 10 (medium), or 11 and higher (higher comorbidity). Prior health resource use was measured by the number of prior physician visits and by the Resource Utilization Band, a measure of overall morbidity and cost based on quintiles of expected resource use: 0 (nonusers) and 1 (least expected use) to 5 (highest expected use).27 Comorbidity and resource use were calculated using data in the 2 years before the date of dementia diagnosis.

Analyses

We computed descriptive statistics for each study group. Propensity score–based inverse probability weighting was used to balance the IPC and non-IPC groups on measured confounders, creating a weighted sample mimicking a randomized sample.28,29 The propensity score was calculated using logistic regression analysis. Covariate balance was verified by comparing the propensity score and weight distributions in both groups and based on standardized mean differences of less than 0.01 between groups for each covariate.29 We derived risk differences, relative risks, and corresponding 95% CIs for the study outcomes from the weighted sample through bootstrap aggregating of the effect estimates from 1,000 bootstrapped samples. The number needed to treat was calculated as the inverse of the risk difference.

Data on marital and caregiver status, dementia severity, behavioral symptoms, functional status, self-reported health status, and receipt of antipsychotic medications were available for the subset of individuals who had received a Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care for long-stay home care services and/or long-term care home placement.30 These additional covariates were extracted for individuals with assessment dates within 3 months before dementia diagnosis and used for sensitivity analysis.

We performed 3 sensitivity analyses for the primary outcome of overall ED use. First, we conducted a sensitivity analysis stratifying by residence to account for possible residual confounding given its importance as a potential confounder in the relationship between IPC and ED use.14,31 Second, we used propensity score calibration to incorporate additional data on covariates available for only a subset of the population (Supplemental Appendix).32 Third, we assessed the robustness of the estimated effect using the E-value (Supplemental Figure 2).33

All analyses were performed using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) and R software, version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).34

RESULTS

We determined that 257,495 community-dwelling people were newly identified with dementia in Ontario during 2005-2015 (Figure 1). Of these, 95,668 were enrolled in either an IPC practice or a non-IPC practice. The final analytic sample comprised 95,323 people after exclusion of those with missing data (0.3%). Among this sample, median follow-up was identical for both groups (1 year); 17.6% in the IPC group and 17.1% in the non-IPC group were admitted to long-term care or died during the 1-year follow-up period.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flow diagram showing identification of study analytic sample.

IPC = interprofessional primary care.

Table 1 presents the baseline characteristics of the original (unweighted) sample. The groups were of similar age and sex with small variations in terms of recent immigration status, income, comorbidity, and overall resource use. Those in the IPC group more frequently resided in a rural area and had fewer prior physician visits than counterparts in the non-IPC group. After weighting, the distribution of the propensity score and stabilized weights were well balanced between the 2 groups (Supplemental Figure 3) and the absolute standardized mean differences were negligible (Supplemental Figure 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of the Study Population of People Newly Identified With Dementia in Ontario, by Group

During the year following dementia diagnosis, in the weighted sample, people with dementia in the IPC group had a 3% higher likelihood of making ED visits overall (relative risk [RR] = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05) and a 22% higher likelihood of making nonurgent ED visits (RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.28) (Table 2). There was no evidence of an association between IPC and the likelihood of 1-year hospitalization overall (RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06) or hospitalization for an ambulatory care–sensitive condition (RR = 1.06, 95% CI, 0.95-1.19).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

ED Visits and Hospitalizations in the Year Following Dementia Ascertainment

In sensitivity analyses, the greater use of EDs by individuals in the IPC group was evident among urban residents but not among rural residents (Supplemental Table 1). The association between IPC and ED use persisted when the augmented set of confounders was used for propensity-score calibration in the subgroup who had had an assessment with the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care for long-stay home care services and/or a long-term care home placement (Supplemental Appendix). Finally, we found that an unmeasured confounder associated with both IPC and overall ED use with a relative risk of 1.21 or higher could explain away the estimated relative risk of 1.03 for ED visits in the main analysis (Supplemental Figure 2).

DISCUSSION

This study examined the association between enrollment in a practice using the IPC team model and acute care hospital use among people newly identified with dementia. We found that IPC was associated with greater overall and nonurgent ED use in the year following dementia diagnosis. No relationship was found between IPC and hospitalization outcomes.

Findings in Context

These results add to a scarce and mixed body of literature on the potential benefits of IPC over physician-only practices in older populations. We found ED use to be 3% higher for people with dementia cared for by an IPC team compared with those cared for by a non-IPC team, which, although statistically significant, may not represent a meaningful difference from a health system and clinical perspective. It may therefore be more in line with prior intervention studies in this population that found no evidence of an association between IPC and ED use; however, our study contrasts with other studies that found a modest decrease in ED visits with the interprofessional model of care.2,8,12,13,35 Our findings on hospitalization outcomes were consistent with those of previous intervention and population-based studies in populations that were older or had multimorbidity.2,12,13,36-38

Given the multifaceted needs of people with dementia, we hypothesized that access to IPC would be associated with decreased ED use. Several factors may explain the absence of evidence of this relationship in our study. First, it is possible that the observed increase in overall and nonurgent ED use was the result of an increase in appropriate ED use. Improved patient-centered care in IPC teams may have led to better patient or caregiver awareness of symptoms. Increased access to primary care may also have fueled demand for other unmet needs.39 This phenomenon, referred to elsewhere as supply-induced demand, has been observed in other evaluations of health reforms.40 Second, the observed overall association of IPC with hospital use for acute care among people with dementia in our study may not reflect the heterogeneity in the characteristics of IPC teams.41 Team functioning, colocation, and clinician continuity, which have been shown to be important predictors of health service use,38,42-47 may differ across IPC teams and may influence the degree or even direction of effect of IPC on patient outcomes. For people with dementia who see a wide range of professionals for their physical, cognitive, and social needs, clinician continuity of care may in fact be reduced within IPC teams compared with physician-only practices.38 A lack of clinician continuity may inadvertently lead to more fragmented care, impeding the establishment of therapeutic, trusting relationships in this population. Finally, IPC, without systematic training or support for dementia care, may not be sufficient to impact use of EDs and other health services at a population level.48 Studies showing IPC to be effective in improving dementia care and health service use have used dementia-specific interventions, including a nurse with training in geriatric or dementia care, a dementia care navigator, and/or support from cognition specialists.2,7,49 Although the IPC model in Ontario aimed to provide better prevention and management of a variety of chronic diseases, dementia might not have been prioritized among other chronic conditions, which might have led to a diminished effect of IPC for dementia. This possibility is consistent with literature citing the lack of consideration of dementia among chronic diseases in older adults.50

Future research should assess decision-making pathways leading to ED use among people with dementia. An examination of the influence of team characteristics in the relationship between IPC and health service use in this population may also help uncover the conditions under which IPC can be most effective. The extent to which dementia care, which relies primarily on management rather than therapeutic intervention, may be more present in team-based primary care models compared with physician-only models warrants further investigation, to quantify the added value of nonphysician team members to dementia care. Overall, the findings of our study highlight the need to bring dementia management to the forefront of chronic disease management in primary care.

Strengths and Limitations

There are notable strengths and limitations of our study. It used novel causal inference methods at both the design and analysis stage to minimize bias in the assessment of IPC among people with dementia and their health service use. For example, the choice of our comparator group and the elaboration of a directed acyclic graph informed by clinicians and others allowed a thorough assessment and control of potential sources of confounding. We also used novel and underused methods in causal inference such as propensity score calibration and the E-value to ascertain the robustness of our results. Nevertheless, heterogeneity in the IPC team characteristics was not considered and may have moderated the effect of IPC on the study outcomes. Another important limitation is the lack of nonphysician encounter data in the health administrative data. Such data would have allowed us to uncover the extent and type of services provided by nonphysician team members to people with dementia. Finally, although we made every effort to limit bias due to confounding in our analysis, the possibility of unmeasured confounding remains. Specifically, some confounders measured, such as residence and factors pertaining to socioeconomic status, were available only as either binary or quintile variables in part because of privacy requirements to ensure individuals could not be identified. These factors are known to be important predictors of team membership, and the availability of continuous data would have helped better correct for confounding. Other physician-related factors, such as years in practice, physician sociodemographic factors, or activities around collaboration, for which data were not available, may have also played a role in the management of patients and the rates of health service use.

Conclusion

In our study, IPC was associated with increased overall and nonurgent ED use. Although IPC may be well suited to manage the growing and complex dementia population, a better understanding of the optimal characteristics of team-based care and the reasons leading to hospital use for acute care by people with dementia is needed.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Dr Howard Bergman for his insight on the interpretation and validation of results. We also sincerely thank Ms Kavita Metha, CEO of the Association of Family Health Teams of Ontario for her insight on the structure and functioning of Family Health Teams. We also acknowledge the assistance of Ms Mary Henein in formatting the tables and graphs in this manuscript as well as Ms Laura Maclagan for her support with ICES data–related queries and Ms Georgia Hacker for formatting the manuscript for submission. All people who have contributed substantially to this work have been listed as authors.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: authors report none.

  • Read or post commentaries in response to this article.

  • Author contributions: Nadia Sourial made substantial contributions to the conception and design, analysis, interpretation of data, and the drafting, revisions, and final approval of the manuscript. Dr Sourial had full access to all the data in the study, conducted and was responsible for the data analysis, and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Tibor Schuster contributed to the conception and design, interpretation of data, revision, and final approval of the manuscript. Susan E. Bronskill contributed to the conception and design, interpretation of data, revision, and final approval of the manuscript. Claire Godard-Sebillotte contributed to the conception and design, interpretation of data, revision, and final approval of the manuscript. Jacob Etches contributed to the acquisition of data, analysis, interpretation of data, revision, and final approval of the manuscript. Isabelle Vedel contributed to the conception and design, interpretation of data, drafting, revision, and final approval of the manuscript.

  • Funding support: This work was funded through Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships. The Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging, which is supported by a grant from CIHR with funding from several partners (ID No. CNA-137794) also supported this work. This study was also supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Long-Term Care (MLTC). Parts of this material are based on data and information compiled and provided by the Ontario MOH and MLTC, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, IMS Brogan Inc, and the Ontario Association of Community Care Access Centres.

  • Disclaimer: The analyses, conclusions, opinions, and statements expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not reflect those of the funding or data sources; no endorsement is intended or should be inferred.

  • Previous presentations: Some preliminary methods and preliminary results were presented at the following conferences: Society for Epidemiologic Research, June 18-21, 2019, Minneapolis, Minnesota; North American Primary Care Research Group meeting, November 16-20, 2019, Toronto, Ontario, and November 20-24, 2020 (virtual); Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research, May 29-31, 2019, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and 2020 (virtual); Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging, October 2019, Quebec; and Quebec Network for Research on Aging, October 2019, Montreal.

  • Supplemental materials

  • Received for publication November 27, 2021.
  • Revision received May 31, 2022.
  • Accepted for publication June 20, 2022.
  • © 2022 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bynum JP,
    2. Rabins PV,
    3. Weller W,
    4. Niefeld M,
    5. Anderson GF,
    6. Wu AW.
    The relationship between a dementia diagnosis, chronic illness, Medicare expenditures, and hospital use. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004; 52(2): 187-194. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52054.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Callahan CM,
    2. Boustani MA,
    3. Unverzagt FW, et al.
    Effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with Alzheimer disease in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2006; 295(18): 2148-2157. doi:10.1001/jama.295.18.2148
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Crooks EA,
    2. Geldmacher DS.
    Interdisciplinary approaches to Alzheimer’s disease management. Clin Geriatr Med. 2004; 20(1): 121-139. doi:10.1016/j.cger.2003.11.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Fortinsky RH,
    2. Delaney C,
    3. Harel O, et al.
    Results and lessons learned from a nurse practitioner-guided dementia care intervention for primary care patients and their family caregivers. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2014; 7(3): 126-137. doi:10.3928/19404921-20140113-01
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Grand JH,
    2. Caspar S,
    3. Macdonald SW.
    Clinical features and multidisciplinary approaches to dementia care. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2011; 4: 125-147. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S17773
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. DiCenso A,
    2. Bourgeault I,
    3. Abelson J, et al.
    Utilization of nurse practitioners to increase patient access to primary healthcare in Canada—thinking outside the box. Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2010; 23(Spec No 2010): 239-259. doi:10.12927/cjnl.2010.22281
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Jennings LA,
    2. Tan Z,
    3. Wenger NS, et al.
    Quality of care provided by a comprehensive dementia care comanagement program. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016; 64(8): 1724-1730. doi:10.1111/jgs.14251
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Possin KL,
    2. Merrilees JJ,
    3. Dulaney S, et al.
    Effect of collaborative dementia care via telephone and internet on quality of life, caregiver well-being, and health care use: the Care Ecosystem randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179(12): 1658-1667. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4101
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    1. Aminzadeh F,
    2. Molnar FJ,
    3. Dalziel WB,
    4. Ayotte D.
    A review of barriers and enablers to diagnosis and management of persons with dementia in primary care. Can Geriatr J. 2012; 15(3): 85-94. doi:10.5770/cgj.15.42
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Vedel I,
    2. Couturier Y.
    Results of Evaluative Study and Course of Action for Extending the “Initiative ministérielle sur la maladie d’Alzheimer et autres troubles neurocognitifs majeurs” (Ministerial initiative for Alzheimer’s disease and other major neurocognitive disorders) Across Quebec. Final Report. Published Oct 2016. Accessed Sep 27, 2022. https://www.mcgill.ca/familymed/files/familymed/executive_summary_rapport_final_pour_msss_2016-10-17_fr.pdf
  11. 11.↵
    1. LaMantia MA,
    2. Stump TE,
    3. Messina FC,
    4. Miller DK,
    5. Callahan CM.
    Emergency department use among older adults with dementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2016; 30(1): 35-40. doi:10.1097/WAD.0000000000000118
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Jennings LA,
    2. Laffan AM,
    3. Schlissel AC, et al.
    Health care utilization and cost outcomes of a comprehensive dementia care program for Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179(2): 161-166. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5579
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Amjad H,
    2. Wong SK,
    3. Roth DL, et al.
    Health services utilization in older adults with dementia receiving care coordination: the MIND at home trial. Health Serv Res. 2018; 53(1): 556-579. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12647
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Glazier RH,
    2. Hutchison B,
    3. Kopp A.
    Comparison of Family Health Teams to Other Ontario Primary Care Models, 2004/05 to 2011/12. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). Published Nov 2015. Accessed Sep 27, 2022. https://www.ices.on.ca/Publications/Atlases-and-Reports/2015/Comparison-of-Family-Health-Teams
  15. 15.↵
    1. Rosser WW,
    2. Colwill JM,
    3. Kasperski J,
    4. Wilson L.
    Progress of Ontario’s family health team model: a patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2011; 9(2): 165-171. doi:10.1370/afm.1228
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
    . About ICES. Accessed Jun 30, 2019. https://www.ices.on.ca/About-ICES
  17. 17.↵
    1. Sourial N,
    2. Vedel I,
    3. Godard-Sebillotte C,
    4. Etches J,
    5. Arsenault-Lapierre G,
    6. Bronskill SE.
    Sex differences in dementia primary care performance and health service use: a population-based study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020; 68(5): 1056-1063. doi:10.1111/jgs.16347
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Sivananthan SN,
    2. McGrail KM.
    Diagnosis and disruption: population-level analysis identifying points of care at which transitions are highest for people with dementia and factors that contribute to them. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016; 64(3): 569-577. doi:10.1111/jgs.14033
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Jaakkimainen RL,
    2. Bronskill SE,
    3. Tierney MC, et al.
    Identification of physician-diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in population-based administrative data: a validation study using family physicians’ electronic medical records. J Alzheimers Dis. 2016; 54(1): 337-349. doi:10.3233/JAD-160105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
    . Q&A: understanding family health teams. Last modified Apr 27, 2022. Accessed Aug 26, 2017. https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/fht/fht_understanding.aspx
  21. 21.↵
    1. Mcmurchy D,
    2. Astles R, The Conference Board of Canada
    . An External Evaluation of the Family Health Team (FHT) Initiative. The Conference Board of Canada. Published Dec 2014. Accessed Sep 27, 2022. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273866011_An_External_Evaluation_of_the_Family_Health_Team_FHT_Initiative
  22. 22.↵
    1. Glazier RH,
    2. Zagorski BM,
    3. Rayner J.
    Comparison of Primary Care Models in Ontario by Demographics, Case Mix and Emergency Department Use, 2008/09 to 2009/10. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). Published Mar 2012. Accessed Sep 27, 2022. https://www.ices.on.ca/Publications/Atlases-and-Reports/2012/Comparison-of-Primary-Care-Models
  23. 23.↵
    1. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
    . Prehospital Canadian Triage & Acuity Scale: Prehospital CTAS Paramedic Guide. Version 2.0 Published 2016. Accessed Sep 27, 2022. https://www.lhsc.on.ca/media/2904/download
  24. 24.↵
    1. Laberge M,
    2. Wodchis WP,
    3. Barnsley J,
    4. Laporte A.
    Hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions across primary care models in Ontario, Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2017; 181: 24-33. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.040
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    1. Statistics Canada
    . 2011 census of population, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 98-311-XCB2011018. Accessed Sep 27, 2022. https://www.recensement2011.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/tbt-tt/Rp-eng.cfm?LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=0&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=101998&PRID=10&PTYPE=101955&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2011&THEME=88&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=
  26. 26.↵
    1. Statistics Canada
    . Population centre and rural area classification 2016. Published Jan 16, 2017. Accessed Sep 27, 2022. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/subjects/standard/pcrac/2016/introduction
  27. 27.↵
    1. Johns Hopkins University
    . The Johns Hopkins ACG® System. Accessed Sep 27, 2022. https://www.hopkinsacg.org/
  28. 28.↵
    1. Hernan MA,
    2. Robins JM.
    Causal Inference: What If. Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020.
  29. 29.↵
    1. Austin PC,
    2. Stuart EA.
    Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015; 34(28): 3661-3679. doi:10.1002/sim.6607
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Canadian Institute for Health Information
    . Data Quality Documentation, Home Care Reporting System. 2012–2013. Accessed Sep 27, 2022. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HCRS-External-Data-Quality-Report_2012_EN_web.pdf
  31. 31.↵
    1. Ionescu-Ittu R,
    2. McCusker J,
    3. Ciampi A, et al.
    Continuity of primary care and emergency department utilization among elderly people. CMAJ. 2007; 177(11): 1362-1368. doi:10.1503/cmaj.061615
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Stürmer T,
    2. Schneeweiss S,
    3. Avorn J,
    4. Glynn RJ.
    Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 162(3): 279-289. doi:10.1093/aje/kwi192
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. VanderWeele TJ,
    2. Ding P.
    Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-Value. Ann Intern Med. 2017; 167(4): 268-274. doi:10.7326/M16-2607
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. R Core Team
    . R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022.
  35. 35.↵
    1. Godard-Sebillotte C,
    2. Le Berre M,
    3. Schuster T,
    4. Trottier M,
    5. Vedel I.
    Impact of health service interventions on acute hospital use in community-dwelling persons with dementia: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019; 14(6): e0218426. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0218426
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    1. Strumpf E,
    2. Ammi M,
    3. Diop M,
    4. Fiset-Laniel J,
    5. Tousignant P.
    The impact of team-based primary care on health care services utilization and costs: Quebec’s family medicine groups. J Health Econ. 2017; 55: 76-94. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.06.009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.
    1. Meyers DJ,
    2. Chien AT,
    3. Nguyen KH,
    4. Li Z,
    5. Singer SJ,
    6. Rosenthal MB.
    Association of team-based primary care with health care utilization and costs among chronically ill patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179(1): 54-61. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5118
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Haj-Ali W,
    2. Moineddin R,
    3. Hutchison B,
    4. Wodchis WP,
    5. Glazier RH.
    Role of interprofessional primary care teams in preventing avoidable hospitalizations and hospital readmissions in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020; 20(1): 782. doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05658-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Rosen R.
    Meeting Need or Fuelling Demand? Improved Access to Primary Care and Supply-Induced Demand. Nuffield Trust; 2014.
  40. 40.↵
    1. Kiran T,
    2. Moineddin R,
    3. Kopp A,
    4. Frymire E,
    5. Glazier RH.
    Emergency department use and enrollment in a medical home providing after-hours care. Ann Fam Med. 2018; 16(5): 419-427. doi:10.1370/afm.2291
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Fiscella K,
    2. McDaniel SH.
    The complexity, diversity, and science of primary care teams. Am Psychol. 2018; 73(4): 451-467. doi:10.1037/amp0000244
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    1. Wu FM,
    2. Rubenstein LV,
    3. Yoon J.
    Team functioning as a predictor of patient outcomes in early medical home implementation. Health Care Manage Rev. 2018; 43(3): 238-248. doi:10.1097/HMR.0000000000000196
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. 43.
    1. Donnelly C,
    2. Ashcroft R,
    3. Mofina A,
    4. Bobbette N,
    5. Mulder C.
    Measuring the performance of interprofessional primary health care teams: understanding the teams perspective. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2019; 20: e125. doi:10.1017/S1463423619000409
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.
    1. Gocan S,
    2. Laplante MA,
    3. Woodend K.
    Interprofessional collaboration in Ontario’s family health teams: a review of the literature. J Res Interprof Pract Educ. 2014; 3(3). doi:10.22230/jripe.2014v3n3a131
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.
    1. Bodenheimer T.
    Anatomy and physiology of primary care teams. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179(1): 61-62. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5550
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.
    1. Wranik WD,
    2. Price S,
    3. Haydt SM, et al.
    Implications of interprofessional primary care team characteristics for health services and patient health outcomes: a systematic review with narrative synthesis. Health Policy. 2019; 123(6): 550-563. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.03.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Godard-Sebillotte C,
    2. Strumpf E,
    3. Sourial N,
    4. Rochette L,
    5. Pelletier E,
    6. Vedel I.
    Primary care continuity and potentially avoidable hospitalization in persons with dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021; 69(5): 1208-1220. doi:10.1111/jgs.17049
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    1. Prince M,
    2. Comas-Herrera A,
    3. Knapp M,
    4. Guerchet M,
    5. Karagiannidou M.
    World Alzheimer Report 2016: Improving Healthcare for People Living With Dementia Coverage, Quality and Costs Now and in the Future. Alzheimer’s Disease International. Published Sep 2016. Accessed Sep 27, 2022. https://www.alzint.org/resource/world-alzheimer-report-2016/
  49. 49.↵
    1. Lee L,
    2. Hillier LM,
    3. Stolee P, et al.
    Enhancing dementia care: a primary care-based memory clinic. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010; 58(11): 2197-2204. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03130.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. O’Neill D.
    Anticoagulation in AF. Stroke and dementia are also chronic diseases. BMJ. 2011; 342: d1154. doi:10.1136/bmj.d1154
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Annals of Family Medicine: 20 (6)
Annals of Family Medicine: 20 (6)
Vol. 20, Issue 6
November/December 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Plain-language article summaries
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Interprofessional Primary Care and Acute Care Hospital Use by People With Dementia: A Population-Based Study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
9 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Interprofessional Primary Care and Acute Care Hospital Use by People With Dementia: A Population-Based Study
Nadia Sourial, Tibor Schuster, Susan E. Bronskill, Claire Godard-Sebillotte, Jacob Etches, Isabelle Vedel
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2022, 20 (6) 512-518; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2881

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Interprofessional Primary Care and Acute Care Hospital Use by People With Dementia: A Population-Based Study
Nadia Sourial, Tibor Schuster, Susan E. Bronskill, Claire Godard-Sebillotte, Jacob Etches, Isabelle Vedel
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2022, 20 (6) 512-518; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2881
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators
  • Convenience or Continuity: When Are Patients Willing to Wait to See Their Own Doctor?
  • Feasibility and Acceptability of the “About Me” Care Card as a Tool for Engaging Older Adults in Conversations About Cognitive Impairment
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Chronic illness
  • Person groups:
    • Older adults
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health services
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Coordination / integration of care
  • Other topics:
    • Multimorbidity

Keywords

  • dementia
  • interprofessional teams, primary care
  • health system performance
  • coordination of care
  • administrative data
  • population based
  • practice-based research
  • professional practice
  • delivery of health care

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine