Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24934146›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2014

When to repatriate? Clinicians' perspectives on the transfer of patient management from specialty to primary care.

Sara L Ackerman, Nathaniel Gleason, Jennifer Monacelli, Don Collado, Michael Wang, Chanda Ho, Sereina Catschegn-Pfab, Ralph Gonzales

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Bridging the gap from the oncology setting to community care through a cross-Canada environmental scan.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2018
    Article
  6. Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sara L AckermanDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California San Francisco, 3333 California St., Suite 455, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA, Sara.ackerman@ucsf.edu.
Nathaniel Gleason
Jennifer Monacelli
Don Collado
Michael Wang
Chanda Ho
Sereina Catschegn-Pfab
Ralph Gonzales

Funding

UCSF Liver Core CenterP30DK026743 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Holger Willenbring · 1986 to 2026
$30.7M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK026743
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubspecialty ambulatory care visits have doubled in the past 10 years and nearly half of all visits are for follow-up care. Could some of this care be provided by primary care providers (PCPs)?

objectiveTo determine how often PCPs and specialists agree that a mutual patient's condition could be managed exclusively by the PCP, and to understand PCPs' perspectives on factors that influence decisions about 'repatriation,' or the transfer of patient management to primary care.

designA mixed method approach including paired surveys of PCPs and specialists about the necessity for ongoing specialty care of mutual patients, and interviews with PCPs about care coordination practices and reasons for differing opinions with specialists.

participantsOne hundred and eighty-nine PCPs and 59 physicians representing five medicine subspecialties completed paired surveys for 343 patients. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 PCPs. MEASUREMENTS: For each patient, PCPs and specialists were asked, "Could this diagnosis be managed exclusively by the PCP?"

resultsSpecialists and PCPs agreed that transfer to primary care was appropriate for 16% of patients, whereas 36% had specialists and PCPs who agreed that ongoing specialty care was appropriate. Specialists were half as likely as PCPs to identify patients as appropriate for transfer to primary care. PCPs identified several factors that influence the likelihood that patients will be transferred to primary care, including perceived patient preferences, limited access to physician appointments, excessive workload, inter-clinician communication norms, and differences in clinical judgment. We group these factors into two domains: 'push-back' and 'pull-back' to primary care.

conclusionsAt a large academic medical center, approximately one in six patients receiving ongoing specialty care could potentially be managed exclusively by a PCP. PCPs identified several non-clinical factors to explain continuation of specialty care when patient transfer to PCP is clinically appropriate.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDisease ManagementReferral and ConsultationAgedData CollectionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient TransferPhysicians, Primary CareSpecialization

Identifiers

PMID24934146
PMCPMC4175642

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.