Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T23:19:23.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Multiple Sclerosis Clinic Utilization is Associated with Fewer Emergency Department Visits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2021

Jodie I. Roberts*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Christopher Hahn
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Luanne M. Metz
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
*
Correspondence to: Dr. Jodie I. Roberts, Division of Neurology, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Foothills Medical Centre, 1403 – 29 Street NW, 12th Floor, Calgary, AB T2N 2T9, Canada. Email: jirobert@ucalgary.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Objective:

Alberta is a Canadian province with a high prevalence of multiple sclerosis (MS). In this ecological study, we examined group differences in health care utilization among persons with MS (pwMS) living within different regions of the province.

Methods:

pwMS were identified from provincial administrative databases spanning 2002–2011. Utilization of health care services was determined for a 2-year period (April 2010–March 2012). Residential postal codes placed patients into their provincial health care zones. As data were provided to the investigators in an aggregated form, tests of statistical significance and confounding were not performed.

Results:

In total, 11,721 pwMS were identified. During the 2-year observation period, 96.2% of pwMS accessed a family physician and 57.1% accessed a neurologist. Nearly all (99.0%) pwMS who received neurologist care in Calgary visited an MS clinic, in contrast to Edmonton where a larger proportion (34.8%) received solely community neurologist care. More pwMS living in Edmonton accessed the ED (41.1%) compared to Calgary (35.7%), and the rate of visits per pwMS was higher in Edmonton (1.07/pwMS) than in Calgary (0.81/pwMS). The frequency of inpatient admissions was similar.

Conclusions:

Over 2 years, most pwMS accessed primary care and over half saw a neurologist. Despite a similar frequency of inpatient admissions, the frequency of ED visits by pwMS was higher in Edmonton compared to Calgary, where more patients received MS clinic care. Although this exploratory study is subject to several limitations, our findings suggest that specialized MS clinics may reduce costly ED visits.

Résumé :

RÉSUMÉ :

L’utilisation des centres de traitement de la sclérose en plaques associée à un nombre moindre de consultations au service des urgences.

Objectif :

La prévalence des cas de sclérose en plaques (SP) est élevée en Alberta, province canadienne. L’étude écologique dont il est question ici visait à examiner les différences entre les groupes quant à l’utilisation des soins de santé chez les personnes vivant avec la SP dans différentes régions de la province.

Méthode :

Les cas de SP ont été relevés dans des bases de données administratives provinciales et portaient sur la période de 2002 à 2011, tandis que l’utilisation des services de santé, elle, portait sur la période d’avril 2010 à mars 2012 (2 ans). La répartition des patients selon leur zone sanitaire respective dans la province reposait sur les codes postaux de leur lieu d’habitation. Comme les données fournies aux chercheurs l’ont été sous forme cumulative, aucun test de la signification statistique ou de facteurs parasites n’a été réalisé.

Résultats :

Au total, 11 721 cas de SP ont été relevés. Au cours de la période d’observation d’une durée de 2 ans, 96,2 % des personnes atteintes de SP ont pu consulter un médecin de famille, et 57,1 %, un neurologue. Presque toutes celles (99,0 %) qui ont reçu les soins d’un neurologue à Calgary sont allées dans un centre de traitement de la SP, contrairement à celles vivant à Edmonton où une proportion plus importante de patients (34,8 %) n’ont reçu que les soins d’un neurologue en milieu communautaire. Ainsi, plus de personnes vivant avec la SP à Edmonton (41,1 %) qu’à Calgary (35,7 %) se sont rendues au service des urgences (SU), et le taux de consultation par malade atteint de la SP était plus élevé à Edmonton (1,07/SP) qu’à Calgary (0,81/SP). Toutefois, la fréquence des hospitalisations était comparable.

Conclusion :

Au cours de la période de 2 ans, la plupart des personnes vivant avec la SP ont eu recours à des soins primaires et plus de la moitié, à des soins spécialisés en neurologie. Malgré une fréquence comparable des hospitalisations, la fréquence des consultations au SU pour la SP était plus élevée à Edmonton qu’à Calgary, là où un plus grand nombre de patients ont pu recevoir des soins dans un centre de traitement de la SP. Bien que plusieurs points faibles viennent atténuer la portée de cette étude préliminaire, les résultats donnent à penser que ce type de centre peut réduire le nombre de consultations coûteuses au SU.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, disabling, inflammatory, and degenerative disease of the central nervous system. The pathogenesis of MS is multifactorial with both genetic and environmental influences. Reference van der Mei, Lucas and Taylor1,Reference Baranzini and Oksenberg2

The economic impact associated with MS is substantial, with annual Canadian health sector costs from MS projected to reach 2 billion dollars by 2031. Reference Amankwah, Marrie and Bancej3 Although rates of inpatient hospitalizations have been decreasing over the past two decades, they remain elevated respective to the general population. Reference Marrie, Elliott and Marriott4 Emergency department utilization is also increased in persons with MS (pwMS); newly diagnosed pwMS are twice as likely to present to the ED compared to healthy controls, Reference Asche, Singer, Jhaveri, Chung and Miller5 and another small study showed that nearly half of pwMS visited the emergency department over a 3-year period. Reference Gottberg, Einarsson, Fredrikson, von Koch and Holmqvist6

Despite increased health care utilization, pwMS living in Canada are more likely to report that they have unmet health care needs. Reference Pohar, Jones, Warren, Turpin and Warren7 Health outcomes are strongly linked to primary care access, Reference Basu, Berkowitz, Phillips, Bitton, Landon and Phillips8 and integrated multidisciplinary MS clinics (MSC) are considered the gold standard for MS care, both in the setting of active relapsing disease and in progressive MS where patients encounter evolving symptomatology such as lower urinary tract dysfunction, dysphagia, and concerns with mobility. Reference Uygunoglu, Kantarci and Siva9 Multidisciplinary care has demonstrated survival benefit in other chronic neurological conditions such as motor neuron disease. Reference Traynor, Alexander, Corr, Frost and Hardiman10 MSC care appears to improve medication adherence and persistence and possibly decrease MS-related hospitalization rates. Reference Tan, Yu, Tabby, Devries and Singer11 Furthermore, access to nurses specialized in MS care has been previously demonstrated to reduce ED utilization. Reference Leary, Quinn and Bowen12

Alberta is a Canadian province with a population of 4.4 million 13 and one of the highest rates of MS in the world. Reference Warren, Svenson and Warren14Reference Rosati16 Neurology care for pwMS in Alberta is provided by either an MSC neurologist or a community neurologist (CN). The majority of pwMS residing in Calgary are managed by Calgary MSC neurologists, whereas delivery of neurologist care is more varied in other areas of the province. In the current study, we utilized provincial administrative databases to describe where pwMS in Alberta receive health care and compared the frequency of ED visits and inpatient admissions in Alberta’s two largest urban communities where MS care differed markedly.

Methods

Setting and Design

This is an ecological study performed in Alberta, Canada which examined group differences in health care utilization among pwMS living within different regions of the province. Alberta is distributed between three regions: two urban regions, Calgary and Edmonton, and the rest of the province, which is largely rural. Health care is administered by the same publicly funded health system throughout Alberta. There are three MSCs in the province, located in Calgary, Edmonton, and Red Deer (a small city which lies between Edmonton and Calgary). Within the province of Alberta, MSCs are defined as clinics where pwMS receive multidisciplinary care from subspecialist neurologists, physiatrists, nurses, and allied health professionals. Patients enrolled in MSCs have daytime telephone access to specialized MS clinic nurses, who provide patient education and address most concerns regarding medication management and symptoms. Rehabilitation and counseling are also available.

All Alberta residents are assigned a lifelong, unique, personal health care number which is linked through provincial administrative databases to all hospital admissions, physician visits, prescription dispensations, laboratory investigations, and diagnostic imaging. Using administrative data, pwMS were retrospectively identified. Primary care visits, neurologist visits (stratified into MSC and CN), emergency department visits, and inpatient admissions in different regions of the province were described.

MS Case Definition

MS cases were identified during a 9-year ascertainment period (April 2002–March 2011) using International Classification of Diseases Ninth or Tenth Revision (ICD-9/10) diagnostic codes for MS (340/G35). Patients were classified as having a diagnosis of MS if they had either (i) a confirmed inpatient diagnosis, (ii) a confirmed diagnosis at an MS clinic, or (iii) ≥3 outpatient codes claimed for a diagnosis of MS. This is similar to an administrative data case definition which was previously used to study the incidence and prevalence of MS in Alberta. Reference Warren, Svenson and Warren14

Administrative Data Linkage

Confirmed MS cases were linked using the patient’s unique Alberta Health Care Number to numerous administrative databases. Residential postal codes were used to place pwMS into their provincial health care zones (https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/ahs-map-ahs-zones.pdf). Health care zones other than “Calgary” and “Edmonton” were classified as “Other.” The “Other” category captures smaller cities and rural regions. As data analysis was performed at the group level, pwMS were not reclassified if they travelled outside of their health care zone to receive care (i.e. the number of pwMS living within each health care zone and the number of health care visits by pwMS within a given health care zone were estimated separately).

Primary Care and Neurologist Visits

Physician billing data during a 2-year period (April 2010–March 2011) were used to identify visits to general practitioners and neurologists. Neurologists were identified as working within an MS clinic, or not. For this report, pwMS who had any care delivered by an MSC neurologist were considered to have access to MSC resources, even though in some cases ED visits and hospitalizations may have preceded neurologist and MSC care. Given that only five communities in Alberta have practicing neurologists (Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer, Lethbridge, and Medicine Hat) most rural patients travel outside of their health zone to receive care. Accordingly, the frequency of neurologist visits in the “other” category (which contains smaller cities and rural centers) could not be reliably determined and is not reported.

Emergency Department Visits

Visits to the emergency department were captured through the Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) Presenting Complaint List (PCL) dataset within the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database. The CEDIS PCL is a standardized list used to capture patient reasons (symptoms and presenting complaints) for seeking emergency care. Reference Adler, Kadimi, Apaloo and Marcu17,Reference Grafstein, Bullard, Warren, Unger and Group18 Every patient visiting an emergency department in Alberta is assigned a presenting complaint by medical staff (typically nursing triage) at the time of presentation. CEDIS PCL is then linked to the corresponding ICD-10 codes. The number of ED visits was stratified according to health care zone.

Hospital Admissions

The absolute number, frequency, and duration of inpatient admissions in the 2-year period were determined and stratified by the health care zones. The speciality of the admitting physician and ICD-10 code for admitting diagnosis were additionally reported.

Statistical Analysis

Aggregate data were reported by the Physician Learning Program (PLP). The PLP is a provincial, physician-led organization which generates actionable clinical information to advance evidence-informed practice (https://albertaplp.ca/). Data were collected and analyzed by the PLP with the goal of identifying practice gaps, unmet care needs, and opportunities to improve care for pwMS. Neurologists with an interest in caring for outpatients with MS also had the option of receiving a report that described the population of pwMS seen in their practice. Data were stratified by age, sex, the health care zone where the pwMS lived, and where the neurologist practiced. Descriptive statistics including mean, median, and standard deviation were reported where appropriate. As original data were not available to the investigators, tests of statistical significance were not performed.

Ethics Approval

The Calgary Health Research Ethics Board determined that patient and neurologist consent were not required for aggregate reporting.

Results

Demographics

During the 9-year ascertainment period (2002–2011), 11,721 unique pwMS were identified. Approximately three-quarters of pwMS were female (71.7%). The mean age of pwMS was 50.3 years (SD ± 13.6) and the majority (51.3%) were between the ages of 46–65. The geographical distribution of pwMS was split fairly evenly between Calgary (33.3%), Edmonton (34.8%), and other (31.8%) health care zones.

Primary Care

Nearly all (96.2%) pwMS accessed primary care during the 2-year study period, for a total of 175,479 visits. The average number of visits during the study period per pwMS was 15.6 (SD ± 15.7). The proportion and average number of visits was similar between geographic health care zones (Table 1). More than half (53.6%) of patients visited a primary care physician more than 10 times during the 2-year period. The most common billing codes claimed by primary care physicians were “multiple sclerosis” (20,873 claims), “general symptoms” (7,464 claims), and “depressive disorder, not elsewhere classified” (6,331 claims).

Table 1: Health care utilization of pwMS living in Alberta during a 2-year period (April 2010–March 2012) stratified by geographic health care zone

MSC = multiple sclerosis clinic; CN = community neurologist; ED = emergency department; pwMS = persons with multiple sclerosis.

* Proportion of pwMS that visited a clinic among the population who saw a neurologist during the study period.

Estimates not reliable due to frequent travel outside of health zone.

Neurologist Care

More than half of pwMS (57.0%) saw a neurologist during the 2-year study period. Among pwMS who saw a neurologist, 70.2% were seen exclusively by an MSC neurologist, 21.9% were seen exclusively by a CN, and 7.9% were seen by neurologists from both settings. Nearly all (99.0%) pwMS who received neurologist care in Calgary visited an MS clinic neurologist, in contrast to Edmonton where a large proportion (34.8%) received solely CN care. Patients attending a CN tended to be slightly younger (mean age 46.3 vs. 48.1 years) and visited a neurologist less frequently than patients attending an MSC (mean visits per year per patient, 1.5 visits vs. 3.3 visits).

ED Visits

In total, 3330 pwMS visited an ED during the 2-year period, for a total of 8096 visits. On average, pwMS who presented to ED visited 1.8 times (SD ± 1.5) during the 2-year period, with an upper limit of 18 visits. ED visits stratified by gender were similar to the underlying population distribution, with visits by female pwMS accounting for 69.9% of total ED visits. The proportion of pwMS who visited the ED during the study period was higher in Edmonton compared to Calgary (41.1% vs. 35.7%). The average number of visits per pwMS was also higher in Edmonton relative to Calgary (1.1 vs. 0.8). ED visits were substantially lower in other health zones (Table 1). The most common CEDIS presenting complaints for pwMS visiting the ED were abdominal pain (12.0% of total visits), shortness of breath (8.0%), sensory loss/paresthesias (7.1%), and headache (6.5%). Approximately one quarter (23.7%) of ED visits resulted in admission to hospital.

Inpatient Admissions

In total, 2522 pwMS (21.5%) were admitted to hospital during the 2-year period for a total of 4536 hospital admissions; admission from an emergency department accounted for 2419 (53%) admissions. Among patients admitted to hospital, more than one-third (37.4%) were admitted to hospital more than once over the 2-year period. Hospital admissions stratified by gender were similar to the underlying population distribution, with 71% of admissions accounted for by female pwMS. The average age of pwMS admitted to hospital was 52 years (SD ± 1.52). The average number of hospital admissions per pwMS was similar between Calgary, Edmonton, and other health care zones (Table 1). The most common reasons for admission to hospital were “multiple sclerosis” (44.0%), “urinary tract infection” (21.4%), and “benign hypertension” (6.6%). Nearly half (44.4%) of pwMS were admitted under a primary care physician or hospitalist, with 11.1% of pwMS being admitted to internal medicine and 7.1% of pwMS admitted to a neurology service. There were 191 admissions to ICU, comprising 4% of total hospital admissions among pwMS. The most common reasons for admission to ICU were “pneumonitis due to food and vomit” (16.0%), “urinary tract infection” (13.7%), and “septic shock” (9.9%).

Discussion

Understanding patterns of health care utilization among pwMS is critical to the provision of cost-effective and high-quality health care. In our study, only 57% of pwMS accessed a neurologist during the 2-year period. This is disproportionately lower than estimates reported out of Switzerland (89%), Reference Barin, Kaufmann and Salmen19 which also has a universal health care system, and to the USA (72.2%). Reference Minden, Hoaglin, Hadden, Frankel, Robbins and Perloff20 Due to limitations in our study design, we were unable to determine the proportion of rural pwMS seen by a neurologist; future studies should examine this as a potential barrier to neurologist care in Alberta. Previous studies have demonstrated that living in a rural area, low socioeconomic status, longer duration of disease, and advanced disability are associated with not seeing a neurologist in pwMS. Reference Minden, Hoaglin, Hadden, Frankel, Robbins and Perloff20 Access to neurologist care is important, as pwMS who see a neurologist are more likely to receive disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), be referred to urology, or receive physical or occupational therapy. Reference Minden, Hoaglin, Hadden, Frankel, Robbins and Perloff20 Patients additionally perceive MS care to be superior when it is delivered by a neurologist relative to other physicians. Reference Buchanan, Kaufman, Zhu and James21

Among pwMS who saw a neurologist in Calgary, nearly all (99.0%) were seen in an MSC in contrast to Edmonton where only 65.2% were seen in an MSC. In addition to the benefits of multidisciplinary care, theoretical concerns regarding general neurologist comfort with DMTs have been raised as potential argument for MS subspecialty care. Reference Marriott, Mamdani, Saposnik, Gomes, Manno and O’Connor22 Although a 2009 Ontario study examining DMT prescribing patterns did not detect any significant differences between MSC and CN neurologists, Reference Marriott, Mamdani, Saposnik, Gomes, Manno and O’Connor22 most currently used DMTs have only become available in Canada since 2009. It is plausible that CN uptake of newer DMTs may lag behind that of MSC neurologists.

Our findings suggest that care in an MSC is associated with a reduction in ED visits. In contrast to Calgary, where 99.0% of pwMS receive their neurology care from an MSC neurologist, a larger proportion of pwMS living in Edmonton accessed the ED (41.1% vs. 35.7%) and had more frequent ED visits (1.07/pwMS vs. 0.81/pwMS) over the 2-year period. If these findings represent true differences, this translates into a meaningful reduction in ED visits; a 5% difference in ED visits has previously been reported as a clinically meaningful difference in the Canadian setting. Reference McAlister, Bakal, Green, Bahler and Lewanczuk23 Although our results suggest that ED use was high among both urban populations of pwMS, it is possible that bias was introduced by overlapping time frames for MS case ascertainment and enumeration of ED visits. Ideally, ED visits which occurred prior to the diagnosis of MS would have been censored; this is particularly important given emerging evidence for an MS prodromal period which is associated with increased health care utilization. Reference Tremlett and Marrie24

Fewer ED visits among pwMS in Calgary may be due to the availability of daytime telephone nursing access to address patient concerns as well as education, rehabilitation, and counseling which may have reduced the need for urgent care. Most patients present to the ED by their own accord, rather than by direct physician referral Reference Oynhausen, Alcauskas and Hannigan25 and prior studies have demonstrated that most pwMS presenting to the emergency department come with MS-related issues such as concerns about new neurologic complaints, worsening pre-existing symptoms, or MS-related complications. Reference Abboud, Mente and Seay26 Even among patients presenting with a new neurologic symptom, approximately one-third have alternate explanations for their symptoms such as urinary tract infection, which may in fact be indirectly due to MS. Reference Abboud, Mente and Seay26 Telephone access to specialized MS nurses who can triage patients according to established algorithms allows for pwMS patients with mild relapses or pseudorelapses to be treated as outpatients. Reference Leary, Quinn and Bowen12

Approximately one-fifth of pwMS were admitted to hospital during the 2-year study period. Less than half of the hospitalizations were coded as being directly related to MS, with urinary tract infections being the second most common reason for admission to hospital and aspiration pneumonia being the most common reason for admission to intensive care. Neurogenic bladder, dysphagia, and weak respiratory muscles make pwMS at higher risk of these secondary conditions. Previous studies have also reported that pwMS are more likely to be admitted to hospital with an infection than the general population and are significantly more likely to have infection-related mortality. Reference Montgomery, Hillert and Bahmanyar27 Infection-related ED presentations are more common in patients with a higher severity of MS, particularly those with ambulation impairment to the level of requiring a cane. Reference Oynhausen, Alcauskas and Hannigan25 Future studies should include efforts to examine the role of MSCs in preventing respiratory and genitourinary infections.

While utilization of the ED was lower outside of major urban centers, differences in rural health care access and delivery preclude direct comparisons. Potentially, physical access to care may be decreased due to differences in health care delivery, long distances to health care sites, and lack of public transport. It is also possible that some patients traveled outside of their health care zone to visit the ED and would not have been accurately captured by our analysis.

This is a population-based administrative data study with nearly complete ascertainment of pwMS living in the Canadian province of Alberta. Other strengths of this study include use of a 2-year study period to capture health care visits among pwMS. Unfortunately, this study has several limitations secondary to the aggregated nature of the data. Estimates of variability and tests of significance could not be performed, restricting the ability to form robust conclusions from the reported findings. However, given the sizable study population (over 10,000 pwMS), it can be reasonably inferred that the clinically significant differences reported here would also reach statistical significance. Multivariate analysis could not be performed to assess for effect modifiers and confounding variables such as MS severity and socioeconomic status. Furthermore, the benefit of MSC care can only be assumed to be the reason for differences between Calgary and Edmonton; it is possible other factors may have differed between these regions that affected ED use. Analysis of individual data is required to examine these exploratory findings in greater detail. Additionally, although the case definition used in this study is similar to that previously used in the province of Alberta, Reference Warren, Svenson and Warren14 it remains possible that some cases with a single billing code from an MS clinic may have been misclassified. Additionally, our case definition may have been subject to regional variations in billing practices between Calgary and Edmonton. Future studies should confirm our findings and determine which components of MS clinics (e.g. MS subspecialists, allied health professionals, physiatry, urology) are related to decreased ED utilization.

The results of this population-based study of health care utilization in pwMS suggest that MSC care may be associated with decreased ED visits among pwMS. If confirmed, this argues for making MSC care universally available.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Physician Learning Program for their assistance with data acquisition for this study.

Disclosures

JIR reports no disclosures. CH has been on an advisory board for Novartis. LMM reports no disclosures.

Statement of Authorship

JIR assisted with design/conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting and revising the manuscript for intellectual content. CH assisted with design/conceptualization of the study and revising the manuscript for intellectual content. LMM assisted with design/conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, and revising the manuscript for intellectual content.

References

van der Mei, I, Lucas, RM, Taylor, BV, et al. Population attributable fractions and joint effects of key risk factors for multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2016;22:461–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baranzini, SE, Oksenberg, JR. The genetics of multiple sclerosis: from 0 to 200 in 50 years. Trends Genet. 2017;33:960–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amankwah, N, Marrie, RA, Bancej, C, et al. Multiple sclerosis in Canada 2011 to 2031: results of a microsimulation modelling study of epidemiological and economic impacts. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2017;37:3748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marrie, RA, Elliott, L, Marriott, J, et al. Dramatically changing rates and reasons for hospitalization in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2014;83:929–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asche, CV, Singer, ME, Jhaveri, M, Chung, H, Miller, A. All-cause health care utilization and costs associated with newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis in the United States. J Manag Care Pharm. 2010;16:703–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottberg, K, Einarsson, U, Fredrikson, S, von Koch, L, Holmqvist, LW. Multiple sclerosis in Stockholm County. A pilot study of utilization of health-care resources, patient satisfaction with care and impact on family caregivers. Acta Neurol Scand. 2002;106:241–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohar, SL, Jones, CA, Warren, S, Turpin, KV, Warren, K. Health status and health care utilization of multiple sclerosis in Canada. Can J Neurol Sci. 2007;34:167–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basu, S, Berkowitz, SA, Phillips, RL, Bitton, A, Landon, BE, Phillips, RS. Association of primary care physician supply with population mortality in the United States, 2005–2015. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:506–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uygunoglu, U, Kantarci, O, Siva, A. Integrated multidisciplinary clinics should be the gold standard in managing progressive MS – YES. Mult Scler. 2016;22:1126–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traynor, BJ, Alexander, M, Corr, B, Frost, E, Hardiman, O. Effect of a multidisciplinary amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) clinic on ALS survival: a population based study, 1996–2000. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003;74:1258–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, H, Yu, J, Tabby, D, Devries, A, Singer, J. Clinical and economic impact of a specialty care management program among patients with multiple sclerosis: a cohort study. Mult Scler. 2010;16:956–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leary, A, Quinn, D, Bowen, A. Impact of proactive case management by multiple sclerosis specialist nurses on use of unscheduled care and emergency presentation in multiple sclerosis: a case study. Int J MS Care. 2015;17:159–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Government of Alberta. First Quarter 2020 Alberta population estimates [online]. Available at: https://www.alberta.ca/population-statistics.aspx; accessed June 23, 2020.Google Scholar
Warren, SA, Svenson, LW, Warren, KG. Contribution of incidence to increasing prevalence of multiple sclerosis in Alberta, Canada. Mult Scler 2008;14:872–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, CA, Metz, LM, Svenson, LW, Patten, SB. Regional variation of multiple sclerosis prevalence in Canada. Mult Scler. 2005;11:516–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosati, G. The prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the world: an update. Neurol Sci. 2001;22:117–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adler, AC, Kadimi, S, Apaloo, C, Marcu, C. Herpes simplex encephalitis with two false-negative cerebrospinal fluid PCR tests and review of negative PCR results in the clinical setting. Case Rep Neurol. 2011;3:172–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafstein, E, Bullard, MJ, Warren, D, Unger, B, Group, CNW. Revision of the Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) presenting complaint list version 1.1. CJEM. 2008;10:151–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barin, L, Kaufmann, M, Salmen, A, et al. Patterns of care for multiple sclerosis in a setting of universal care access: a cross-sectional study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;28:1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minden, SL, Hoaglin, DC, Hadden, L, Frankel, D, Robbins, T, Perloff, J. Access to and utilization of neurologists by people with multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2008;70:1141–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchanan, RJ, Kaufman, M, Zhu, L, James, W. Patient perceptions of multiple sclerosis-related care: comparisons by practice specialty of principal care physician. NeuroRehabilitation. 2008;23:267–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marriott, JJ, Mamdani, M, Saposnik, G, Gomes, T, Manno, M, O’Connor, PW. Multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapy prescribing patterns in Ontario. Can J Neurol Sci. 2013;40:6772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAlister, FA, Bakal, JA, Green, L, Bahler, B, Lewanczuk, R. The effect of provider affiliation with a primary care network on emergency department visits and hospital admissions. CMAJ. 2018;190:E27684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tremlett, H, Marrie, RA. The multiple sclerosis prodrome: emerging evidence, challenges, and opportunities. Mult Scler. 2021;27:612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oynhausen, S, Alcauskas, M, Hannigan, C, et al. Emergency medical care of multiple sclerosis patients: primary data from the Mount Sinai resource utilization in multiple sclerosis project. J Clin Neurol. 2014;10:216–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abboud, H, Mente, K, Seay, M, et al. Triaging patients with multiple sclerosis in the emergency department: room for improvement. Int J MS Care. 2017;19:290–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, S, Hillert, J, Bahmanyar, S. Hospital admission due to infections in multiple sclerosis patients. Eur J Neurol. 2013;20:1153–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1: Health care utilization of pwMS living in Alberta during a 2-year period (April 2010–March 2012) stratified by geographic health care zone