Grant: CIHR Fellowship

Overview: Governments often direct patients to primary care or walk-in clinics, believing they offer quality care at lower costs than emergency departments (EDs). But is this belief backed by strong evidence? Our study seeks to answer this by examining the costs and outcomes of care in EDs, walk-in clinics, and primary care facilities. Why it Matters: Redirecting patients based on cost can change where people receive care. But without clear evidence on whether one setting is more cost-effective than another, we can't be sure this is the best approach. The study hopes to offer clarity on this issue, ensuring that healthcare funds are used wisely and patients receive the best care. How We're Doing It: Our team is assessing the value of care in 14 clinical sites across Quebec and Ontario, including rural and urban areas. Patients with one of 17 disorders (like back pain, fever, or respiratory problems) will be studied in three settings: EDs, walk-in clinics, and primary care practices. We're looking at both the costs and the clinical outcomes of care. The cost will include salaries and other relevant costs such as equipment used. Clinical outcomes will be reported by the patients and will notably include satisfaction with care and improvement in their condition. How We'll Analyze the Data: We will calculate the average cost per patient in each setting. We'll also consider how often patients return to a clinic or how they rate their experience and improvement in their conditions. We will compare both the cost and clinical outcomes of each clinical setting to analyze which one offers the best value of care for each type of health problem. The Big Picture: Our study will offer crucial insights into the best clinical settings for patient care. By understanding which type of facility (EDs, walk-in clinics, or primary care clinics) offers the best value, we can guide decision-makers in healthcare. This will ensure patients get optimal care without unnecessary costs.