ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2014
Provider collaboration: cohesion, constellations, and shared patients.
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 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications of network analysis to routinely collected health care data: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Pooled it
- A Scoping Review of Multilevel Patient-Sharing Network Measures in Health Services Research.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2025Article
- Article
- Determining the influence of the primary and specialist network of care on patient and system outcomes among patients with a new diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Relation of the Networks Formed by Diabetic Patients Sharing Physicians With Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations.Medical care · 2020Article
- Care coordination for severe mental health disorders: an analysis of healthcare provider patient-sharing networks and their association with quality of care in a French region.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Modeling peer effect modification by network strength: The diffusion of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in the US hospital network.Statistics in medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Physician Network-Based Measures of Care Coordination Using Medicare Patient-Reported Experience Measures.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Data-driven modeling of diabetes care teams using social network analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
- Healthcare network analysis of patients with diabetes and their physicians.The American journal of managed care · 2019Article
- Evaluating Breast Cancer Care Coordination at a Rural National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center Using Network Analysis and Geospatial Methods.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019Article
- Provider Connectedness to Other Providers Reduces Risk of Readmission After Hospitalization for Heart Failure.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- A scoping review of patient-sharing network studies using administrative data.Translational behavioral medicine · 2018Article
- Continuity of Medication Management among Adults with Schizophrenia and Comorbid Cardiometabolic Conditions.Journal of pharmaceutical health services research : an official journal of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain · 2018Article
- Analysis of the U.S. patient referral network.Statistics in medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a natural assumption that quality and efficiency are optimized when providers consistently work together and share patients. Diversity in composition and recurrence of groups that provide face-to-face care to the same patients has not previously been studied.
objectiveClaims data enable identification of the constellation of providers caring for a single patient. To indirectly measure teamwork and provider collaboration, we measure recurrence of provider constellations and cohesion among providers.
designRetrospective analysis of commercial healthcare claims from a single insurer.
participantsPatients with claims for office visits and their outpatient providers. To maximize capture of provider panels, the cohort was drawn from the four regions with the highest plan coverage. Regional outpatient provider networks were constructed with providers as nodes and number of shared patients as links. MAIN MEASURES: Measures of cohesion and stability of provider constellations derived from the networks of providers to quantify patient sharing.
resultsFor 10,325 providers and their 521,145 patients, there were 2,641,933 collaborative provider pairs sharing at least one patient. Fifty-four percent only shared a single patient, and 19 % shared two. Of 15,449,835 unique collaborative triads, 92 % shared one patient, 5 % shared two, and 0.2 % shared ten or more. Patient constellations had a median of four providers. Any precise constellation recurred rarely-89 % with exactly two providers shared just one patient and only 4 % shared over two; 97 % of constellations with exactly three providers shared just one patient. Four percent of constellations with 2+ providers were not at all cohesive, sharing only the hub patient. In the remaining constellations, a median of 93 % of provider pairs shared at least one additional patient beyond the hub patient.
conclusionStunning variability in the constellations of providers caring for patients may challenge underlying assumptions about the current state of teamwork in healthcare.
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.