Efficiency of primary spine care as compared to conventional primary care: a retrospective observational study at an Academic Medical Center

Table 2 Likelihood of escalation of care for patients who received primary spine care versus usual primary care

Outcome	OR	95% CI OR	p-value
Hospitalizations (n = 73)	.47	.23–.97	p = .04
Surgeries (n = 32)	.51	.19–1.36	p = .18
Emergency department (ED) visits (n = 38)	.91	.37–2.22	p = .83
Pain prescription fills (n = 243)	.43	.29–.65	p < .001
Diagnostic imaging of the spine (n = 292)	.87	.63–1.21	p = .41
Spinal injections (n = 124)	.56	.33–.95	p = .03
Specialist visits (n = 184)	.48	.35–.67	p < .001

Group B (PC Patients) served as the referent (comparison) group. All outcomes coded as binary (0/1, “no/yes”) for binary logistic GLM models (controlling for covariates: age, gender, employment status, primary diagnosis, and Charlson score; although depending on the clinical outcome, not all covariates were significant in the various models). OR = odds ratio from the regression model (equivalent to the exp(b) statistic). P-values are from the Wald test reported for the exposure variable (group/cohort)

ISSN: 2045-709X