Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29284409›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

Primary care multidisciplinary teams in practice: a qualitative study.

Brandi Leach, Perri Morgan, Justine Strand de Oliveira, Sharon Hull, Truls Østbye, Christine Everett

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Improving healthcare quality by unifying the American electronic medical report system: time for change.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. When is caring sharing? Primary care provider interdependence and continuity of care.JAAPA : official journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Teaming up in primary care: Membership boundaries, interdependence, and coordination.JAAPA : official journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants · 2022
    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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Brandi LeachDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. Brandi.Leach@Duke.edu.
Perri MorganDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Justine Strand de OliveiraBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Sharon HullDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Truls ØstbyeDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Christine EverettDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Duke University · USQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent recommendations for strengthening the US healthcare system consider restructuring primary care into multidisciplinary teams as vital to improving quality and efficiency. Yet, approaches to the selection of team designs remain unclear. This project describes current primary care team designs, primary care professionals' perceptions of ideal team designs, and perceived facilitating factors and barriers to implementing ideal team-based care.

methodsQualitative study of 44 health care professionals at 6 primary care practices in North Carolina using focus group discussions and surveys. Data was analyzed using framework content analysis.

resultsPractices used a variety of multidisciplinary team designs with the specific design being influenced by the social and policy context in which practices were embedded. Practices overwhelmingly located barriers to adopting ideal multidisciplinary teams as being outside of their individual practices and outside of their control. Participants viewed internal organizational contexts as the major facilitators of multidisciplinary primary care teams. The majority of practices described their ideal team design as including a social worker to meet the needs of socially complex patients.

conclusionsPrimary care multidisciplinary team designs vary across practices, shaped in part by contextual factors perceived as barriers outside of the practices' control. Facilitating factors within practices provide a culture of support to team members, but they are insufficient to overcome the perceived barriers. The common desire to add social workers to care teams reflects practices' struggles to meet the complex demands of patients and external agencies. Government or organizational policies should avoid one-size-fits-all approaches to multidisciplinary care teams, and instead allow primary care practices to adapt to their specific contextual circumstances.

Indexed as

AdultClinical CompetenceFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHealth WorkforceHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrganizational CultureOrganizational PolicyPatient Care TeamPerceptionPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchSocial WorkersPatient care teamPrimary careQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID29284409
PMCPMC5747144
OpenAlexW2777608195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.