Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20127434›Full record

ArticleMedizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983)2010

[Involvement of doctors' assistants in primary care for patients with long-term conditions. General practitioners' (GPs) perception of barriers and opportunities--a qualitative study].

Regine Bölter, Dominik Ose, Katja Götz, Antje Miksch, Joachim Szecsenyi, Tobias Freund

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Regine BölterAbteilung Allgemeinmedizin und Versorgungsforschung, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. regine.boelter@med.uni-heidelberg.de
Dominik Ose
Katja Götz
Antje Miksch
Joachim Szecsenyi
Tobias Freund

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeCare for patients with multiple and chronic diseases is an increasing challenge. The particular demands of chronically ill patients increase the complexity of primary care. Involvement of doctors' assistants is discussed as part of comprehensive frameworks for structured care like the Chronic Care Model (CCM). The aim of this qualitative study was to reveal perceived barriers and opportunities among German general practitioners (GPs) according to the involvement of their assistants in patient care.

methods14 GPs were interviewed. The documents were evaluated analytically according to their content.

resultsMost GPs have a positive point of view with regard to the integration of their assistants. They claim a task-oriented training for the assistants as a precondition. Their working experience, an established patient-assistant relationship and the preparedness to take own responsibility in patient care are stated as supporting factors for the involvement of doctors' assistants in patient care. Main barrier seems to be a lack of time for additional work of their employees.

conclusionThere is a need for task-oriented training, in order to professionalize practice teams. Remarkably, this new approach to chronic care is already integrated into routine care. However, it seems to suit only for some distinct diseases, selected patients and a limited number of doctors' assistants. As part of further professionalization an evaluation of a new job profile for doctors' assistants should be discussed.

Indexed as

Family PracticeGeneral PractitionersAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansPhysician AssistantsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.