↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

Effectiveness of a financial incentive to physicians for timely follow-up after hospital discharge: a population-based time series analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
55 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of a financial incentive to physicians for timely follow-up after hospital discharge: a population-based time series analysis
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.170092
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren Lapointe-Shaw, Muhammad Mamdani, Jin Luo, Peter C. Austin, Noah M. Ivers, Donald A. Redelmeier, Chaim M. Bell

Abstract

Timely follow-up after hospital discharge may decrease readmission to hospital. Financial incentives to improve follow-up have been introduced in the United States and Canada, but it is unknown whether they are effective. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of an incentive program on timely physician follow-up after hospital discharge. We conducted an interventional time series analysis of all medical and surgical patients who were discharged home from hospital between Apr. 1, 2002, and Jan. 30, 2015, in Ontario, Canada. The intervention was a supplemental billing code for physician follow-up within 14 days of discharge from hospital, introduced in 2006. The primary outcome was an outpatient visit within 14 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes were 7-day follow-up and a composite of emergency department visits, nonelective hospital readmission and death within 14 days. We included 8 008 934 patient discharge records. The incentive code was claimed in 31% of eligible visits by 51% of eligible physicians, and cost $17.5 million over the study period. There was no change in the average monthly rate of outcomes in the year before the incentive was introduced compared with the year following introduction: 14-day follow-up (66.5% v. 67.0%, overall p = 0.5), 7-day follow-up (44.9% v. 44.9%, overall p = 0.5) and composite outcome (16.7% v. 16.9%, overall p = 0.2). Despite uptake by physicians, a financial incentive did not alter follow-up after hospital discharge. This lack of effect may be explained by features of the incentive or by extra-physician barriers to follow-up. These barriers should be considered by policymakers before introducing similar initiatives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 25 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#607,465
of 25,218,929 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#986
of 9,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,732
of 328,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#24
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,218,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.