CMAJ • January 31, 2006; 174 (3). First published January 6, 2006; doi:10.1503/cmaj.050698
© 2006 CMA Media Inc. or its licensors
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online Appendices
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lang, E.
Right arrow Articles by Rosenthal, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lang, E.
Right arrow Articles by Rosenthal, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other management
Right arrowRelated Article

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

Eddy Lang, Marc Afilalo, Alain C. Vandal, Jean-François Boivin, Xiaoqing Xue, Antoinette Colacone, Ruth Léger, Ian Shrier and Stephen Rosenthal

From the Emergency Department, Emergency Multidisciplinary Research Unit (Lang, Afilalo, Xue, Colacone, Léger, Rosenthal) and the Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies (Vandal, Boivin, Shrier), Sir Mortimer B. Davis–Jewish General Hospital; and the Departments of Mathematics and Statistics (Vandal) and of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Boivin), McGill University, Montréal, Qué.


Figure 117
View larger version (34K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1: Flow of participants through the study. The left-hand side of the flow chart depicts the flow of physicians, and the right-hand side depicts the flow of patients and patient visits during the 4 crossover periods. *A total of 179 patients were excluded because the patient was in an altered mental state (n = 129) or a state of agitation (n = 21) or because of a language barrier (n = 29).

 

View this table:

[in a new window]
  		Table 1.

 

View this table:

[in a new window]
  		Table 2.

 

Figure 217
View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2: Odds ratios of markers of resource utilization in the emergency department. CI = confidence interval. The size of each box represents the sample size.