ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2014
Primary care staff perspectives on a virtual learning collaborative to support medical home implementation.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of eHealth use on general practice workload in the pre-COVID-19 era: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- The role of quality improvement collaboratives in general practice: a qualitative systematic review.BMJ open quality · 2022Pooled it
- The LEAP Program: Quality Improvement Training to Address Team Readiness Gaps Identified by Implementation Science Findings.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Trial
- Evaluation of a learning collaborative on team-based care: qualitative analysis of coaching calls using normalisation process theory.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Among Therapists Participating in Learning Collaboratives: Examining Two Implementation Strategies.Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health · 2025Article
- Tailor swiftly: lessons learned from a nationwide implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program for asymptomatic bacteriuria.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- International implementation of a care review process for mortality reviews: improving quality and safety virtually across the world.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Continuous quality improvement at the frontline: One interdisciplinary clinical team's four-year journey after completing a virtual learning program.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- A cluster randomized controlled trial comparing Virtual Learning Collaborative and Technical Assistance strategies to implement an early palliative care program for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: a study protocol.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Staff Perspectives on Primary Care Teams as De Facto "Hubs" for Care Coordination in VA: a Qualitative Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Implications of the Patient-Centered Medical Home for Nursing Practice.The Journal of nursing administration · 2015Article
- The most used and most helpful facilitators for patient-centered medical home implementation.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany organizations rely on quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) to facilitate Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) implementation, and there is a trend toward conducting QIC activities virtually to reduce costs and expand their reach. However, the evidence base for QICs is limited; questions remain about how QICs operate, why they succeed or fail, and how they are experienced by participants.
objectiveWe surveyed participants in an innovative Virtual Collaborative (VC) designed to support PCMH implementation within one Veterans Integrated Service Network, to understand why and for whom the VC was more/less effective and identify opportunities for improvement.
designThis anonymous online survey was designed to assess participants' views on the VC's usefulness, impact, and acceptability, and to explore variations by role, practice setting, prior training, and overall engagement in VC activities.
participantsRespondents were 353 primary care staff, including providers, nurses, and support staff. MEASURES/APPROACH: The survey comprised 32 structured and three free-response items. Structured items assessed participation in and perceived usefulness of VC activities; perceived acceptability of the training format; overall perceived impact; and basic demographics. Responses were dichotomized and compared using Chi-square tests. Free-response items inviting constructive criticism of the VC were coded and summarized to identify themes and illustrative quotes.
resultsThe VC most benefited respondents with prior PCMH training and those who fully participated in VC activities. Respondents especially valued the opportunity to share experiences with other teams. Non-providers and those new to PCMH felt learning content did not meet their needs. Reported barriers to full participation included staffing constraints, insufficient and/or unprotected time, and inadequate leadership support.
conclusionsOur study offers practical lessons for others considering a virtual collaborative model for PCMH spread. Findings contribute to the evidence base for QICs overall and virtual QICs in particular, highlighting the value of seeking input from "the trenches."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.