ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2016
Academic family health teams: Part 2: patient perceptions of access.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using positive deviance to improve timely access in primary care.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Ten years of the Primary Care Assessment Tool inCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021Article
- Article
- Electronic communication between family physicians and patients: Findings from a multisite survey of academic family physicians in Ontario.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021Article
- Impact on patient satisfaction and importance of medical intake and office staff in a multidisciplinary, one-stop shop transgender program in Indianapolis, Indiana.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2019Article
- Achieving Integrated Care for Older People: What Kind of Ship? Comment on "Achieving Integrated Care for Older People: Shuffling the Deckchairs or Making the System Watertight for the Future?"International journal of health policy and management · 2018Article
- First contact: what does it mean for family practice in 2017?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2017Article
- Academic family health teams: Part 1: patient perceptions of core primary care domains.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore patients' perceptions of primary care (PC) in the early development of academic family health teams (aFHTs)--interprofessional PC teams delivering care where family medicine and other health professional learners are trained--focusing on patients' perceptions of access and patients' satisfaction with services.
designSelf-administered survey.
settingSix aFHTs in Ontario.
participantsAdult patients attending appointments and administrators at each of the aFHTs.
main outcome measuresAnswers to questions about access from the Primary Care Assessment Tool Adult Expanded Version, the Primary Care Assessment Survey, and research team questions.
resultsThe response rate was 47.3% (1026 of 2167). The mean (SD) Primary Care Assessment Tool first-contact accessibility score was 2.28 (0.36) out of 4, with 96.5% of patients rating access less than 3, which was the minimum expected level of care. Two-thirds (66.6%) indicated someone from their aFHTs would definitely or probably see them the same day if they were sick, 56.8% could definitely or probably get advice quickly by telephone, and 14.5% indicated it was definitely or probably difficult to be seen by their primary health care provider (HCP). Additionally, 46.9% indicated they would like to get medical advice by e-mail. For a routine or follow-up visit, 73.4% would be willing to see another aFHT physician if their regular provider were unavailable, while only 48.3% would see a nonphysician HCP. If sick, 88.2% would see another aFHT physician and 55.2% would see a nonphysician HCP. Most (75.3%) were satisfied with access to their regular HCP.
conclusionAlthough patients are generally satisfied with care, there is room for improvement in access. Strategies are needed to enhance access to care, including addressing appropriate roles and scopes of practice for nonphysician HCPs. The accessibility challenges for aFHTs will likely affect new family physicians and other HCPs training in these practices and their approach to future practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27331229PMC4721858What 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.