Community Paramedicine Program in Social Housing and Health Service Utilization
Authors: Gina Agarwal, Melissa Pirrie, Ricardo Angeles, Francine Marzanek, J. Michael Paterson, Francis Nguyen, Lehana Thabane
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2024)

Importance Community Paramedicine at Clinic (CP@clinic) is a chronic disease prevention program that decreases 911 calls for emergency medical services, but its wider system effects are unknown. Objective To evaluate the effects of CP@clinic vs usual care on individual-level health service utilization outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants This open-label, pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial evaluated all residents 55 years or older in 30 social housing buildings in Ontario, Canada, that had (1) a unique postal code, (2) at least 50 apartments, (3) 60% or more residents 55 years or older, and (4) a similar building for pairing (15 intervention and 15 control buildings, pair-matched randomization). The 12-month intervention had a staggered start date from January 1, 2015, to December 1, 2015, and ended between December 31, 2015, and November 30, 2016. Administrative health data analysis was conducted in May 2022. Intervention CP@clinic was a health promotion and disease prevention program led by specially trained community paramedics who held weekly drop-in sessions in social housing buildings. These paramedics conducted 1-on-1 risk assessments, provided health education and referrals to relevant community resources, and, with consent, sent assessments to family physicians. Control buildings received usual care (universal health care, including free primary and specialty medical care). Main Outcome and Measures Individual-level health service utilization was measured from administrative health data, with ED visits via ambulance as the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included ED visits for any reason, primary care visits, hospitalizations, length of hospital stay, laboratory tests, receipt of home care, transfer to long-term care, and medication initiation. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate intervention effects on individual-level health service utilization, accounting for trial design and individual-level baselines. Results The 30 social housing buildings had 3695 residents (1846 control and 1849 intervention participants; mean [SD] age, 72.8 [9.1] years; 2400 [65.0%] female). Intention-to-treat analysis found no significant difference in ED visits by ambulance (445 of 1849 [24.1%] vs 463 of 1846 [25.1%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05) but found higher antihypertensive medication initiation (74 of 500 [14.8%] vs 47 of 552 [8.5%]; AOR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.19-2.53) and lower anticoagulant initiation (48 of 1481 [3.2%] vs 69 of 1442 [4.8%]; AOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86) in the intervention arm vs the control arm. CP@clinic attendance was associated with higher incidence of primary care visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17), higher odds of receiving home care (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13), and lower odds of long-term care transfers (AOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.81). Conclusions and Relevance In this cluster randomized clinical trial of CP@clinic, the intervention did not affect the rate of ED visits by ambulance; however, there were increased primary care visits and connections to home care services, which may have increased antihypertensive medication initiation and reduced long-term care transfers from social housing. Health policymakers should consider CP@clinic’s impact as an upstream approach to improve care for older adults with low income. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02152891