Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Portrait of rural emergency departments in Québec and utilization of the provincial emergency department management Guide: cross sectional survey

  • Richard Fleet1, 2, 11Email author,
  • Julien Poitras1, 2,
  • Patrick Archambault1, 2,
  • Fatoumata Korika Tounkara2,
  • Jean-Marc Chauny3,
  • Mathieu Ouimet4,
  • Josée Gauthier5,
  • Gilles Dupuis6,
  • Alain Tanguay2,
  • Jean-Frédéric Lévesque7,
  • Geneviève Simard-Racine8,
  • Jeannie Haggerty9 and
  • France Légaré10
BMC Health Services Research201515:572

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1242-0

Received: 18 March 2015

Accepted: 18 December 2015

Published: 23 December 2015

Abstract

Background

Rural emergency departments (EDs) constitute crucial safety nets for the 20 % of Canadians who live in rural areas. Pilot data suggests that the province of Québec appears to provide more comprehensive access to services than do other provinces. A difference that may be attributable to provincial policy/guidelines “the provincial ED management Guide”. The aim of this study was to provide a detailed description of rural EDs in Québec and utilization of the provincial ED management Guide.

Methods

We selected EDs offering 24/7 medical coverage, with hospitalization beds, located in rural or small towns. We collected data via telephone, paper, and online surveys with rural ED/hospital staff. Data were also collected from Québec’s Ministry of Health databases and from Statistics Canada. We computed descriptive statistics, ANOVA and t-tests were used to examine the relationship between ED census, services and inter-facility transfer requirements.

Results

A total of 23 of Québec’s 26 rural EDs (88 %) consented to participate in the study. The mean annual ED visits was 18 813 (Standard Deviation = 6 151). Thirty one percent of ED physicians were recent graduates with fewer than 5 years of experience. Only 6 % had residency training or certification in emergency medicine. Teams have good local access (24/7) to diagnostic equipment such as CT scanner (74 %), intensive unit care (78 %) and general surgical services (78 %), but limited access to other consultants. Sixty one percent of participants have reported good knowledge of the provincial ED management Guide, but only 23 % of them have used the guidelines. Furthermore, more than 40 % of EDs were more than 300 km from levels 1 to 2 trauma centers, and only 30 % had air transport access.

Conclusions

Rural EDs in Québec are staffed by relatively new graduates working as solo physicians in well-resourced and moderately busy (by rural standards) EDs. The provincial ED management Guide may have contributed to this model of service attribution. However, the majority of rural ED staff report limited knowledge or use of the provincial ED management Guide and increased efforts at disseminating this Guide are warranted.

Keywords

Access to care Rural medicine Rural emergency medicine Health services research, Rural critical care Canadian health care system Cross sectional survey Descriptive study Primary care

Background

Providing emergency medical care in rural settings is challenging [1, 2]. Rural populations are generally older, report lower health status and are at a proportionally higher risk of trauma than are urban populations [35]. Rural emergency departments (EDs) are important safety nets for the members of the local community. However, over the past 15 years, the limited human and financial resources available in rural Canada have forced efforts to centralize/regionalize health care services in these areas [69]. These changes may have reduced timely access to emergency services and, in some cases, decreased the quality of care [10].

For many, Canada’s publically funded universal health care system is a defining feature of this country. Canadian rural citizens may be tempted to look toward Federal legislation, the Canada Health Act, as a safeguard because one of the central components of the legislation is “reasonable access to care” [11]. The intent of accessibility criterion of the Canada Health Act is set to ensure that Canadians “have reasonable access to insured hospital, medical and surgical-dental services on uniform terms and conditions, unprecluded or unimpeded, either directly or indirectly, by charges (user charges or extra-billing) or other means (e.g., discrimination on the basis of age, health status or financial circumstances)” [12]. However, actual provision of health care is under provincial jurisdiction and interprovincial variations are possible without justification.

In 1997, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) responded to service cuts with a position paper on rural emergency care [13], listing priority research questions to be addressed. Despite this call for research, surprisingly few studies have been conducted since 1997, and gaps in the knowledge about rural emergency services still preclude evidence-based decisions about allocation of resources and services. Furthermore, the extent and the nature of services currently provided in rural EDs remains unclear.

According to our pilot studies [14], the province of Québec seems to provide more comprehensive local access to services in rural EDs than that offered in other parts of Canada [15]. For example, less than 30 % of rural EDs in other provinces have 24/7 access to a local CT scanner, ICU or general surgeon. The reasons for the discrepancies are not clear, but one hypothesis is that this may be attributable to a published provincial policy/guidelines and for emergency care in Québec [16]. The provincial ED management Guide defines the expected support services in EDs as per hospital designation, and includes specific sections pertaining to rural EDs [16]. Hospital designation is determined by several factors, including ED census. The provincial ED management Guide was developed in 2000 and revised in 2006, with the objective of making all stakeholders accountable for quality of care in EDs. It is unclear whether or not Québec has been successful in implementing the provincial ED management Guide recommendations and if implemented guidelines have resulted in increased access to quality care.

A major research initiative is underway in Québec, with the objective of providing a detailed portrait of rural EDs and a better understanding of the use/impact of the provincial ED management Guide on quality of care [17]. As an initial step, this article presents a detailed description of Québec’s rural EDs and the use of the provincial ED management Guide.

Methods

The protocol for the larger multi-center assessment program was approved by the research ethics committee at the Alphonse–Desjardins Center for Health and Social Services (CSSS AD). Informed consent to participate in the study was not obtained from participants, because data were from hospital database. Anonymity was respected at all levels of the procedure.

Methodology details are presented in the published protocol [17]. The Québec study was conducted in several phases. This paper reports data obtained in phase 1 of the study (described below). This project is a descriptive and evaluative study of rural EDs in Québec. The EDs included in the study offered 24/7 medical coverage, had hospitalization beds and were located in a “rural or small towns”. The Statistics Canada definition of “rural or small towns” is the following: “the population living in towns and municipalities outside the commuting zone of larger urban centers (i.e., outside the commuting zone of centers with a population of 10,000 or more)” [18]. The 26 Québec rural EDs were identified using the Health Canada Establishment Guide and confirmed by the Québec Ministry of Health and Social Services and the “Direction Nationale des Urgences”.

Data collection

To develop a comprehensive portrait of all rural EDs in Québec in 2010, data were collected via telephone, paper, and online surveys with rural ED/hospital staff, from Québec’s Ministry of Health databases, and from Statistics Canada. Briefly, the telephone, paper, and online surveys were used to obtain data concerning (1) hospital center characteristics (e.g., referral centres, availability of local intensive care unit [ICU] beds); (2) availability of health information technology (e.g., Internet and wireless Internet access); (3) knowledge transfer activities (e.g., quality assurance, Journal club); (4) ED variables (e.g., triage level, wait time, average hospital stay, on number of annual visits, number of stretchers and number of transfers between facilities) were gathered in conjunction with MSSS “Direction Nationale des Urgences”, (5) availability of 24/7 diagnostic services (e.g., laboratory, basic radiography, Computerized Tomography (CT) Scanner, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), ultrasound, portable ultrasound); (6) medical and paramedical staff (e.g., number of emergency doctors, years of experience and level of training, percentage of locum doctors per period, availability of specialists, number and level of training of nurses, presence of other health professionals). Prior to the study, this list of variables was submitted for review to a group of experts in emergency medicine and trauma as well as to decision-makers and leaders of professional associations including clinicians, the heads of professional associations, the Québec college of physicians), policymakers, and the senior management of medical schools [19]. All sociodemographic variables were obtained from Statistics Canada website.

Statistical analyses

Data were entered and verified by two research assistants and analyzed with SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina, USA). The analyses were conducted in collaboration with an independent biostatistics service from the Statistical Consulting Service of Université Laval. Means, medians, and percentages were calculated for variables. We used ANOVAs and t tests to examine the relationships between available services, ED census and inter-facility transfer requirements.

Results

The overall ED participation rate was 88 % (23/26 EDs). The “rural or small towns” where the EDs were located had a mean population of 5 889 (Standard deviation [SD] = 4 064), and a population density of 133 per km2 (SD = 167). The median age was 49 years and 9 % of the members of the local community were over the age of 75 years. The general characteristics of the rural EDs and rural hospitals are presented in Table 1. Briefly, rural hospitals had an average of 43 acute care beds (SD = 25) and 6 ED stretchers. EDs received a mean of 18 813 annual patient visits (SD = 6151). Seventy seven percent of visits were for low-acuity conditions (Level 4 or Level 5 triage). Average wait times (time from patient registration or triage to the time to see a physician) were just under three hours and the average length of stay was roughly 12 h. Mean length of stay was 15 h for hospitalized patients (awaiting beds), and 11 h for non-hospitalized patients. Forty four percent of EDs are more than 300 km away from a level 1 trauma center and 48 % are more than 300 km from a level 2 trauma center, and only 30 % of these EDs had air transport access.
Table 1

General characteristics of hospital and ED performance

Characteristics

Means ± SDa or %

No of hospital beds

43 ± 25

No of stretchers

6 ± 3

Annual ED patient visits

18 813 ± 6 151

Triage level

 

 Level 1

1 %

 Level 2

2 %

 Level 3

20 %

 Level 4

36 %

 Level 5

42 %

ED Performance (wait in hours)

 ED length of stay

12 ± 4

 Wait time

3 ± 2

 Average length of stay in the ED for hospitalized patients

15 ± 7

 Average length of stay in the ED for non-hospitalized patients

11 ± 3

 Percentage of ED stays over 48 h

2.2 %

Distance to trauma center level 1 or 2

 EDs > 300 km from a Level 1 trauma center

43 % (10/23)

 EDs > 300 km from a Level 2 trauma center

48 % (11/23)

 Air medevac capability

30 % (7/23)

aStandard deviation

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics of ED staff. Almost all EDs were staffed by a solo physician. Full-time and part-time physicians constituted 46 and 54 % of ED physicians, respectively. Most physicians had fewer than 10 years of experience. Only 6 % had Emergency medicine residency training or certification (e.g., Certificate of the College of Family Physicians of Canada - Emergency Medicine (CCFP-EM) or Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians (FRCP) in emergency medicine. On average, physicians worked alongside three nurses on shift. A respiratory technician was on call 24/7.
Table 2

Staffing of the Québec’s 23 Rural EDS

Characteristic

Means ± SDa or %

Physicians Working full time in ED

6 ± 7

Physicians Working part time in ED

7 ± 6

Years of experience

 

 0–5 years

31 %

 6–10 years

20 %

 11–15 years

18 %

 16–20 years

18 %

 Over 20 years

12 %

Percentage of locum doctors per period

 

 January to April

14 %

 May to August

15 %

 September to December

13 %

No of nurses in ED

 

 Day shift

3 ± 1

 Evening shift

3 ± 1

 Night shift

2 ± 1

Nurses certification

 

 Auxiliary

1 ± 3

 Québec’s College (CEGEP)

15 ± 8

 Bachelors

4 ± 2

aStandard error

As presented in Table 3, the majority of Québec’s rural EDs had local access to basic laboratory services, x-ray services and advanced imagery services. Moreover, most EDs had in-house 24/7 access to an ICU (78 %), a general surgeon (78 %), and an anaesthetist (65 %). Fewer than 20 % of EDs had access to a paediatrician or orthopaedist. All EDs have access to Internet, whereas 39 % have access to telemedicine support.
Table 3

Access to 24/7 support services and consultants in Québec’s rural EDs

Support services

 Laboratory

100 % (n = 23/23)

 Basic x-ray services

91 % (n = 21/23)

 ICU

78 % (n = 18/23)

 Portable ultrasound machine

78 % (n = 18/23)

 CT scanner

74 % (n = 17/23)

 Formal ultrasound (radiologist)

30 % (n = 7/23)

 Access to Telehealth

39 % (9/23)

Consultant available 24/7

 Surgeon

78 % (n = 18/23)

 Respiratory therapist

73 % (n = 16/22) a

 Anesthetist

65 % (n = 15/23)

 Psychiatrist

48 % (n = 11/23)

 Internist

39 % (n = 9/23)

 Obstetrician/gynecologist

35 % (n = 8/23)

 Orthopedist

17 % (n = 4/23)

 Pediatrician

13 % (n = 3/23)

 Neurologist

0 % (n = 0/23)

aOne missing value

Higher volume EDs (more than 20 000 annual visits) did not require significantly more inter-facility transfers than low volume EDs (less than 15 000 annual visits) (p = 0.681). More transfers were required in EDs that did not have an ICU versus those that did (p = 0.02). A higher need for urgent inter-facility transfer was significantly associated with not having 24/7 access to a pediatrician or an orthopedic surgeon (p < 0.05) (Table 4).
Table 4

Relationship between 24/7access to services, ED volume and inter-facility transfers

Variables

Overall transfers, means ± SD

p value

Emergency transfers, means ± SD

p value

Nonemergency transfers, means ± SD

p value

ICU

      

 Yes

270 ± 127

0.022

44 ± 29

0.082

226 ± 114

0.048

 No

382 ± 69

 

85 ± 34

 

297 ± 44

 

CT scanner

      

 Yes

293 ± 116

0.929

54 ± 8

0.839

239 ± 103

0.854

 No

299 ± 159

 

50 ± 45

 

250 ± 125

 

Portable ultrasound machine

      

 Yes

321 ± 118

0.059

60 ± 35

0.055

261 ± 104

0.088

 No

198 ± 105

 

27 ± 27

 

171 ± 87

 

Ultrasound (radiologist)

      

 Yes

304 ± 130

0.8130

52 ± 28

0.960

252 ± 113

0.771

 No

290 ± 126

 

53 ± 39

 

237 ± 107

 

Psychiatrist

      

 Yes

328 ± 119

0.223

58 ± 39

0.521

270 ± 108

0.225

 No

263 ± 127

 

48 ± 33

 

215 ± 102

 

Obstetrician/gynecologist

      

 Yes

278 ± 138

0.678

36 ± 25

0.067

242 ± 120

0.986

 No

303 ± 121

 

63 ± 38

 

241 ± 102

 

Surgeon

      

 Yes

301 ± 159

0.694

58 ± 37

0.104

243 ± 101

0.920

 No

269 ± 118

 

33 ± 24

 

236 ± 135

 

Internist

      

 Yes

300 ± 141

0.863

38 ± 25

0.094

262 ± 125

0.503

 No

290 ± 119

 

62 ± 39

 

228 ± 95

 

Pediatrician

      

 Yes

299 ± 101

0.941

32 ± 10

0.032

267 ± 95

0.661

 No

294 ± 130

 

56 ± 37

 

238 ± 109

 

Orthopedist

      

 Yes

280 ± 90

0.763

30 ± 9

0.009

251 ± 85

0.834

 No

297 ± 133

 

58 ± 37

 

240 ± 112

 

Anesthetist

      

 Yes

289 ± 121

0.787

57 ± 39

0.378

231 ± 105

0.556

 No

305 ± 138

 

44 ± 30

 

261 ± 113

 

ED Volume

      

 Low (<15 000)

287 ± 153

0.681£

50 ± 46

0.602£

237 ± 121

0.788*

 Medium (15 00–19 999)

260 ± 117

 

42 ± 33

 

218 ± 95

 

 High (≥20 000)

317 ± 120

 

60 ± 33

 

257 ± 111

 

*P value from anova test

This study asked ED chairs and chief nurses whether or not they knew about or used the ED Guide. Sixty one percent of participants have reported good knowledge of the provincial ED management Guide, but only 23 % of them have used the guidelines (Table 5).
Table 5

Knowledge and utilization of the provincial ED management Guide n = 62

Knowledge of the provincial ED management Guide

 None

6,5 % (4/62)

 A little

32,3 % (20/62)

 Moderately

41,9 % (26/62)

 A lot

19,4 % (12/62)

Utilization of the provincial ED management Guide

 Never

24,2 % (15/62)

 Sometime

53,2 % (33 /62)

 Often

19,4 % (12/62)

 Always

3,2 % (2/62)

Discussion

Few studies have examined rural emergency care in Canada. As a first step, a detailed descriptive study of rural EDs is required in order to further contribute to evidence-based resource allocation and planning. This study collected data on almost 90 % of Québec’s rural EDs. Overall; these EDs treat more than 400 000 patients annually. In contrast to our preliminary data from other provinces in Canada, Québec’s rural EDs have high patient volumes and appear to offer more 24/7 local support services [14, 15]. This study hypothesized that service attribution may reflect provincial policy and could be attributed in part to the existence of the provincial ED management Guide. Yet, surprisingly, emergency healthcare professionals reported limited knowledge and use of the provincial ED management Guide. Nevertheless, in absence of standards in rural emergency care, Québec’s unique policy of providing comprehensive 24/7 local access resources such as CT scanner, surgical and critical care services may be judicious in the context that rural EDs are distant from tertiary trauma centers and have limited air medevac capabilities.

ED characteristics, staffing and performance

Québec rural EDs receive a significant number of ED visits relative to the size of the local population. In fact, rural EDs in Québec receive, on average more than 40 % more consultations than do rural EDs in other provinces of Canada [14]. These consultations are, for the most part, for lower-acuity conditions. Given the limited access to family doctors in rural communities in Québec, it is possible that patients depend on EDs for their acute care needs [20]. In Québec, 21 % of citizens do not have a family physician (and access to one takes an average wait time of 466 days) [21] compared to 15 % in the rest of Canada [22, 23]. Having a primary care doctor does not guarantee access for emergent consultation. In fact, 45 % of Canadians that have a family doctor cannot obtain same-day consultations [22]. Thus EDs will likely remain a safety net for minor emergencies in rural areas. Considering reasonable wait times reported here this may not be a dramatic outcome [20].

Despite the high volume of consultations, wait times in Québec rural EDs are within or approximate national guidelines that were recently published by CAEP [24]. These guidelines suggest that wait times should be under two hours and total time spent in the ED be less than 8 h [24]. Interestingly, a recent report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) shows that national ED wait times average 9.2 h [25]. CIHI did not report rural versus urban wait times. Noteworthy is that Canada has one of the worst ED wait times in developed countries [22].

EDs are staffed by a combination of family doctors who exclusively practice full-time emergency medicine, and family doctors who also have other duties. A total of 14 % of shifts require locum coverage (back-up doctors). Québec has a back-up system consisting of a list of volunteer physicians that staff EDs as necessary called “mécanisme de dépannage”. This system was established primarily to maintain 24/7 ED coverage in small communities. In 2010, a total of 287 physicians across the province were identified as back-ups, many at the service of the hospitals that participated in this study (240 physicians). One report indicated over 13,000 shifts required locum coverage in 2010. In that year alone, the program cost ten million dollars for physicians’ transportation and lodging [26].

Moreover, in order to improve access to emergency care in rural areas, the Québec government developed a program that favours placement of graduating doctors in non-urban, rural, or regional areas. In their first 3 years of practice, new graduates are encouraged to practice in these areas with various financial incentives that can reach upwards of 40 % more remuneration than urban doctors for the same medical billing code [27]. Also, the regional plans of medical staffing in family medicine authorize, for every administrative region of Québec, a target number for family doctors’ recruitment, which allows a fair distribution of new family physicians. Without these programs, the problem of access to physicians in rural centers could be far worse.

Given this context, our finding that 31 % of doctors working in rural areas have fewer than 5 years of experience is not surprising. However, it is unclear how many young physicians stay in rural communities and for how long. A few studies have examined retention in rural areas and multiple factors affect this aspect [2830]. However, no study has examined recruitment and retention in the context of rural emergency practice per se. In light of current and foreseen staffing shortages in emergency medicine, future studies on this aspect are required [31]. A subsequent phase of this study will address this.

The practice of rural emergency medicine is stressful, and may by particularly so for a young physician working with limited consulting and support services. Solutions to the disparity between rural and urban services are complex and multifaceted. Doctors in rural practice become vulnerable to burnout owing to the high workload and low level of collegial and consultant support [28]. Data collected in our pre-study phase suggested that access to resources (e.g., CT scanner) and consultants were among the most important issues for ED physicians [32]. The fact that the vast majority of rural EDs in Québec have 24/7 access to a CT scanner, general surgeon, and an ICU may reflect this need and justify why this is part of the provincial ED management Guide.

Trauma care

Trauma is the 5th leading cause of mortality nationwide [33] and the first cause in patients under the age of 40 [34]. Over the last 40 years, trauma care has improved dramatically and the mortality rate among victims with serious injuries (ISS > 12) fell from 52 % in 1992 to 8,6 % in 2002 in Québec [35]. This dramatic change is believed to be attributable to prevention and the organization of trauma systems. The timely care of patients in level 1 and level 2 trauma centers has also contributed to this excellent result. While 77.5 % of Canadians have access to Level 1 and level 2 trauma centers within a conservative “golden two hours”, marked geographic disparities in access persist [36]. Access to trauma centers is critical because the risk of trauma is three times higher in rural than in urban patients, and the risk of trauma death is twice higher [37]. This study demonstrates that 44 and 48 % of Québec’s rural EDs are respectively, over 300 km from of the level 1 and level 2 trauma centers. Given this distance, it is highly unlikely that trauma patients would reach trauma centers within the recommended time frame. Québec has no helicopter transport and 16 rural hospitals do not have airplane medevac access. Initial management of patients in Québec rural hospitals is therefore highly probable, if not the norm. We are presently conducting a detailed study to specifically address the issue of rural trauma care in Québec. In particular, the study will address the impact of local resources on trauma care.

Inter-facility transfers

Inter-facility transfers imply that the local center is not able to provide appropriate care for the specific reason transfer is requested. Despite good access to resources in Québec’s rural EDs in comparison to rural EDs elsewhere in Canada, access to life- and limb-saving consultations remains limited. For example, rural hospitals in Québec do not have access to cardiac catheterization, or to sub-surgical specialties such as orthopedics, neurosurgery and plastics. In our study, fewer than 40 % have access to an internist, 13 % to a pediatrician and 0 % to neurology. Moreover, the present study demonstrated that approximately 294 inter-facility transfers (data not shown) per year are required with 18 % on an urgent basis. This finding is consistent with the only other report on inter-facility transfer requirements in a rural setting in Canada [38]. Rourke et al. showed that 1.6 % of patients require transfer, most commonly for: orthopedic care (24 %), CT scanner (14 %), and pediatric consultation (8,7 %) [38].

Inter-facility transfers lead to reduced ambulance coverage in rural areas posing a risk to communities. Ambulance transfer is in itself a risky high speed transport, with ambulance crashes occurring with greater frequency and severity than crashes involving vehicles of similar size and weight characteristics [39]. Moreover, results indicate that while there is a greater incidence in urban ambulance accidents, the percentage of ambulance crashes with injuries and the severity of the injuries is greater in the rural settings [3941]. Future national studies must relate inter-facility transfers to locally available equipment. Québec has a complex EMS system comprising of 50 private companies. This appears to be unique feature where most provinces have provincially managed systems. A subsequent phase of this study will address prehospital care in detail.

Thus providing access to services in rural areas, the province of Québec is a unique and possible forward thinking policy. Future studies are required to evaluate whether this model of care is cost-effective, safe and could favor recruitment and retention of physicians.

The provincial emergency department management Guide

The provincial ED management Guide is, to our knowledge, the most recent and concise available document that was designed to make all stakeholders accountable in the process of care of emergency patients. It specifies the services that should be accessible in the province’s EDs based on the number of annual visits to the department and other variables. The Guide also has a section dedicated to rural emergency departments [16].

To our knowledge, Québec is the only Canadian province to have published a comprehensive Guide. For the purpose of the current paper, we focused solely on exploring whether or not participants were aware of the Guide, and whether or not they perceived it to be useful. The large proportion of respondents who were not aware that the Guide existed was a surprise. The provincial ED management Guide is not new, the first version was published in 2000 and a revised version was published in 2006. It is possible that new graduates and employees were not exposed to this tool, and that knowledge transfer concerning the provincial management guide was not sustained over the years. A new version of the guide is presently being developed, and the information in this study may be useful in planning knowledge transfer strategies. An extension of this research will be to conduct a detailed study of the barriers/facilitators to the use of the Guide and better understand its contribution to the level of care and resources offered in rural settings.

In absence of evidence-based standards in care, written policy may serve as a guideline for emergency care. Certainly, the fact that most rural EDs have 24/7 access to a CT scanner, general surgical services and ICU is unique in Canada and could reflect this policy. In absence of standards of care in rural EDs and awaiting data, policy that aims at providing access to services may be a cautious approach to safe care for vulnerable rural populations.

Is the Québec model better?

Providing 24/7 surgical, anesthetic and ICU care carries a cost. Decision makers across Canada have centralized these services on the basis of regrouping expertise, facilitating management and obviously reducing costs. The Québec model thus appears dramatically different from elsewhere in Canada, at least with respect to our preliminary data [14]. The salient question remains what system is more cost-efficient and safe? In terms of cost, a recent report by CIHI suggests per capita annual healthcare spending in Québec is one of the lowest [42]. This same report states that Québec provides among the best value per dollar spent among Canadian provinces [42]. Yet, this report does not address issues of quality of emergency care per se. Future studies need to examine the relationship between the level of resources/services locally offered in rural hospitals and emergency specific quality of care indicators.

In Canada, a series of priority emergency care sensitive indicators have been developed by Schull et al., [43] They include: ED Operations, Patient Safety, Main Management, Pediatrics, Cardiac, Respiratory, stroke, Sepsis/Infection [43]. They are currently being validated mainly in urban academic centers. The indicators have not been operationalized for rural settings. Thus, it may be possible that quality of care indicators cannot be easily captured in rural settings with limited computerized data/patients records. A subsequent phase of this study will address this issue. While awaiting results, in the context of preliminary reports from elsewhere in Canada and the US that suggest increased mortality from trauma, stroke, in rural versus urban hospitals, caution must be exercised in service attribution decisions [4446].

Limitations

The present study constitutes a detailed descriptive portrait of rural EDs in Québec. For the purpose of conducting a nationwide study on rural EDs, this work focused on EDs providing 24/7 physician coverage located in “Rural small town” communities in hospitals with acute care hospitalization beds. The study did not examine access to the full scope of emergency services in Québec; it excluded facilities such as Centre Local de Services Communautaires (CLSCs), “Groupe de médecin de famille (GMF)”, nursing stations and private clinics, which provide basic emergency care to thousands of patients per year. However, the vast majority of these facilities provide only daytime services. They have limited resources (ex. CT scanners and specialists) and are unlikely to provide the full scope of emergency care for life or limb threatening disease. Furthermore this study did not report data concerning outcomes and costs associated with level of access to services.

This study did not collect data on rural ED service areas, and only reported local municipality populations. Determining hospital service areas is a complex and unreliable task. Hospitals may provide specific or specialty services such as imaging and dialysis for rural areas. Furthermore, patients may seek emergency treatment at the center of their choice, even if the chosen facility is not the closest one to their home. It is therefore quite likely that rural hospitals serve territories and populations that are considerably larger than the local population figures reported here.

Conclusion

Rural EDs in Québec are staffed by relatively new graduates working as solo physicians in well-resourced and moderately busy (by rural standards) EDs. The EDs are isolated from trauma centers and have limited access to air transport. The Provincial ED Management Guide may have contributed to this model of service attribution by advocating for local services rather than inter-facility transport. However, the majority of rural ED staff report limited knowledge or use of the Québec Guidelines and increased efforts at disseminating this are warranted. Stakeholders nationwide may also want to examine Quebec’s unique model of rural ED service attribution.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the rural emergency staff of the provinces of Québec for participating in this study as well of the government agencie (“Direction nationale des urgences”) who have collaborated in providing the data.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Family and Emergency Medicine Université Laval
(2)
Research Chair in Emergency Medicine Université Laval, CHAU Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis Hospital
(3)
Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Montreal, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal
(4)
Department of political science, Université Laval
(5)
Direction de l’analyse et de l’évaluation des systèmes de soins et services, Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Université du Québec à Rimouski
(6)
Département de psychologie, Université du Québec à Montréal
(7)
Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity of the University of New South Wales
(8)
Departement of Emergency Medicine, CSSS de la Matapédia
(9)
McGill Research Chair, Family and Community Medicine
(10)
Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Knowledge Transfer and Health Technology Assessment of the CHUQ Research Centre (CRCHUQ), Unité de Recherche Évaluative, Université Laval
(11)
CSSS Alphonse-Desjardins, Research Centre, Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis

References

  1. Grobler L, Marais B, Mabunda S, Marindi P, Reuter H, Volmink J. Interventions for increasing the proportion of health professionals practising in rural and other underserved areas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD005314.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gruen R, Weeramanthri T, Knight S, Bailie R. Specialist outreach clinics in primary care and rural hospital settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1:CD003798.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Canadian Institute for Health Information. How Healthy Are Rural Canadians? An Assessment of Their Health Status and Health Determinants. Ottawa; 2006. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/rural_canadians_2006_report_e.pdf. Accessed 14 January 2014.
  4. Bell N, Simons RK, Lakha N, Hameed SM. Are we failing our rural communities? Motor vehicle injury in British Columbia, Canada, 2001–2007. Injury. 2012;43(11):1888–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Simons R, Brasher P, Taulu T, Lakha N, Molnar N, Caron N, et al. A population-based analysis of injury-related deaths and access to trauma care in rural-remote Northwest British Columbia. J Trauma. 2010;69(1):11–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. McGregor J, Hanlon N, Emmons S, Voaklander D, Kelly K. If all ambulances could fly: Putting provincial standards of emergency care access to the test in Northern British Columbia. Can J Rural Med. 2005;10(3):163–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ministries of Health Services and Health Planning. Standards of accessibility and guidelines for provision of sustainable acute care services by health authorities. Victoria: Government of British Columbia; 2002.Google Scholar
  8. Thompson J, McNair N. Health care reform and emergency outpatient use of rural hospitals in Alberta, Canada. J Emerg Med. 1995;13(3):415–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleet R, Plant J, Ness R, Moola S. Patient advocacy by rural emergency physicians after major service cuts: the case of Nelson, BC. Can J Rural Med. 2013;18(2):56–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleet R, Archambault P, Plant J, Poitras J. Access to emergency care in rural canada: should we be concerned? CJEM. 2013;15(4):191–193.Google Scholar
  11. Minister of Justice. Canada Health Act. In. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 1985.Google Scholar
  12. Ginde A, Foianini A, Renner D, Valley M, Camargo C. Availability and Quality of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Equipment in U.S. Emergency Departments. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(8):780–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Rural Committee of the Canadien Association of Emergency Physicians. Recommendations for the management of rural, remote, and isolated emergency health care facilities in Canada. CJEM. 1997;15(5):741–7.Google Scholar
  14. Fleet R, Poitras J, Maltais-Giguere J, Villa J, Archambault P. A descriptive study of access to services in a random sample of Canadian rural emergency departments. BMJ Open. 2013;3(11):e003876.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Fleet R, Audette LD, Marcoux J, Villa J, Archambault P, Poitras J. Comparison of access to services in rural emergency departments in Quebec and British Columbia. CJEM. 2013;15:1–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec. Guide de gestion de l’urgence. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec; 2006.Google Scholar
  17. Fleet R, Archambault P, Legare F, Chauny JM, Levesque JF, Ouimet M, et al. Portrait of rural emergency departments in Quebec and utilisation of the Quebec Emergency Department Management Guide: a study protocol. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002961. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002961.
  18. Canada S. Definitions of rural. Rural Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin. 2001;3(3):1–17.Google Scholar
  19. Drouin MA, Fleet R, Poitras J, Archambault P, Chauny JM, Levesque JF, et al. The Quebec rural emergency department project: a cross-sectional study of a potential two-pronged strategy in the knowledge transfer process. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0120523.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Gladu FP. Perceived shortage of family doctors in Quebec: can we do something about it? Can Fam Physician. 2007;53(11):1858–60. 1871–1853.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Institut de la statistique du Québec. Enquête québécoise sur l’expérience de soins 2010–2011. Mars 2013. Available at: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/sante/services/generale/medecin-famille.pdf. (Accessed April 01, 2014).
  22. Institut canadien d’information sur la santé. Les soins de santé au Canada 2012: regard sur les temps d’attente. Available at : https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HCIC2012-FullReport-FRweb.pdf. (accessed April 01, 2014).1–81.
  23. Bailey T. Waiting for a family doctor. Can Fam Physician. 2007;53(3):579–82.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Affleck A, Parks P, Drummond A, Rowe BH, Ovens HJ. Emergency department overcrowding and access block. CJEM. 2013;15(6):359–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Emergency Department Trends, 2012–2013. February 2014. Available at: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/NACRS-Infosheet_EDT_EN-web.pdf. Accessed April 01, 2014.
  26. Girard I. On demande des médecins dépanneurs! In: L’Actualité. 2009.Google Scholar
  27. Fournier MA, Contandriopoulos AP, Dienne CP, Trottier LH. Mesures d’attraction et de rétention des médecins en région éloignée: politiques adoptées dans les provinces canadiennes et dans certains pays et leçons à tirer pour le Québec. 2004. Available at: http://www.irspum.umontreal.ca/rapportpdf/R04-08.pdf. Accessed April 04, 2014.Google Scholar
  28. Viscomi M, Larkins S, Gupta TS. Recruitment and retention of general practitioners in rural Canada and Australia: a review of the literature. Can J Rural Med. 2013;18(1):13–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ranmuthugala G, Humphreys J, Solarsh B, Walters L, Worley P, Wakerman J, et al. Where is the evidence that rural exposure increases uptake of rural medical practice? Aust J Rural Health. 2007;15(5):285–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ranmuthugala G, Humphreys J, Solarsh B, Wakerman J, Dunbar JA, Solarsh G. Identifying the aspects of rural exposure that influence medical students to take up rural practice. Med Educ. 2007;41(7):718.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sklar DP, Handel DA, Hoekstra J, Baren JM, Zink B, Hedges JR. The future of emergency medicine: an evolutionary perspective. Acad Med. 2010;85(3):490–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Drouin M-A, Fleet R, Poitras J, Archambault P, Chauny J-M, Lévesque J-F, et al. The Quebec Rural Emergency Department Project: A Cross-Sectional Study of a Potential Two-Pronged Strategy in the Knowledge Transfer Process. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0120523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120523.
  33. Statistics Canada. Leading causes of death, by sex 2011. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth36a-eng.htm. Accessed April 03, 2014.
  34. Institut canadien d’information sur la santé. Comment se portent les Canadiens vivant en milieu rural? Une évaluation de leur état de santé et des déterminants de la santé. Ottawa: Agence de la Santé Publique du Canada; 2006.Google Scholar
  35. Marcotte MA, Bourgeois G, Lapointe J. Success factors for improving the trauma care network in Québec (Canada). In.Google Scholar
  36. Hameed S, Schuurman N, Razek T, Boone D, Van Heest R, Taulu T, et al. Access to trauma systems in Canada. J Trauma. 2010;69(6):1350–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Gomez D, Berube M, Xiong W, Ahmed N, Haas B, Schuurman N, et al. Identifying targets for potential interventions to reduce rural trauma deaths: a population-based analysis. J Trauma. 2010;69(3):633–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rourke J, Kennard M. Emergency patient transfers from rural hospitals: a regional study. CJEM. 2001;3(4):296–301.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Ray AM, Kupas DF. Comparison of rural and urban ambulance crashes in Pennsylvania. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007;11(4):416–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Weiss SJ, Ellis R, Ernst AA, Land RF, Garza A. A comparison of rural and urban ambulance crashes. Am J Emerg Med. 2001;19(1):52–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sanddal ND, Albert S, Hansen JD, Kupas DF. Contributing factors and issues associated with rural ambulance crashes: literature review and annotated bibliography. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008;12(2):257–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Barua B. Provincial Healthcare Index (2013). Studies in Health Policy ed: Fraser Institute; 2013.Google Scholar
  43. Schull M, Hatcher C, Guttmann A, Leaver C, Vermeulen M, Rowe B, et al. Development of a consensus on evidence-based quality of care indicators for Canadian emergency departments. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2010.Google Scholar
  44. Peek-Asa C, Zwerling C, Stallones L. Acute traumatic injuries in rural populations. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(10):1689–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Leira EC, Hess DC, Torner JC, Adams Jr HP. Rural–urban differences in acute stroke management practices: a modifiable disparity. Arch Neurol. 2008;65(7):887–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Joubert J, Prentice LF, Moulin T, Liaw ST, Joubert LB, Preux PM, et al. Stroke in rural areas and small communities. Stroke. 2008;39(6):1920–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Fleet et al. 2015

Advertisement