BACKGROUND Lack of skilled human resources in primary care remains a major concern for policymakers in low- and middle-income countries. There is little evidence supporting the impact of residency training in family medicine in the quality of care, and it perpetuates misconceptions among policymakers that the provision of primary care can be easily done by any physician without special training.

METHODS This article compares the risk of patients being hospitalized due to Ambulatory care sensitive conditions and the odds of having follow-up visits in primary care after hospital discharge, according to the type of their medical provider: (1) Generalists (reference), (2) Family physicians; and, (3) patients with no consultations prior to the event. Multilevel multivariate binomial regression models estimated the relative risks of a patient being hospitalized in a given month and the relative risks for the occurrence of a follow-up visit in primary care in a retrospective cohort of 636.640 patients between January 2013 and July 2018 in Rio de Janeiro.

FINDINGS For all 14 conditions, there was a higher risk of hospitalization when patients had no consultation in primary care prior to the event. Except for Ear, Nose and Throat infections, patients seen by family physicians had a lower risk of being hospitalized, compared to patients seen by Generalists. Follow-up visits were more likely to happen among patients treated by family physicians for almost every condition analyzed.

CONCLUSION With two years of training in family medicine, Family physicians can reduce the risk of their patients being hospitalized and increase the likelihood of those patients having a follow-up consultation in primary care. Investments in residency training in family medicine should be made to fix the shortage of skilled physicians in primary care, reduce hospitalizations and improve quality and continuity of care.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was approved by the Rio de Janeiro Municipal Health Department research ethics board and it is registered under the number 03795118.0.0000.5279. It was conducted in accordance with the 466/12 resolution from the Brazilian National Health Council and the Declaration of Helsinki.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Patients consent was not necessary since only anonymized information was used during the study and the Rio de Janeiro Municipal Health Department, the actual caretaker of this information, gave the consent to use this dataset for this research.

https://www.rio.rj.gov.br/web/sms/comite-de-etica-em-pesquisa