Observational studyQuality management in health care
A Simple Framework for Weighting Panels Across Primary Care Disciplines: Findings From a Large US Multidisciplinary Group Practice.
Observational study in Quality management in health care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Analysis of Variation in Organizational Definitions of Primary Care Panels: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Toward a universal definition of provider-patient attachment in primary care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2024Review
- Article
- Revitalizing Primary Care, Part 1: Root Causes of Primary Care's Problems.Annals of family medicineArticle
- Determining Patient Panel Size in Primary Care: A Meta-Narrative Review.Journal of primary care & community healthReview
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
Abstract
backgroundHealth system redesign necessitates understanding patient population characteristics, yet many primary care physicians are unable to identify patients on their panel. Moreover, accounting for differential workload due to patient variation is challenging. We describe development and application of a utilization-based weighting system accounting for patient complexity using sociodemographic factors within primary care at a large multidisciplinary group practice.
methodsA retrospective observational study was conducted of 27 clinics across primary care serving more than 150 000 patients. Before and after implementation, we measured empanelment by comparing weighted to unweighted panel size and the number of physicians who could accept patients. Perceived access was measured by the number of patients strongly agreed that an appointment was available when needed.
resultsAfter instituting weighting, the percentage of physicians with open panels decreased for family physicians and pediatricians, but increased for general internists; the number of active patients increased by 2%. One year after implementation, perceived access improved significantly in family and general internal medicine clinics (P < .05). There were no significant changes for general pediatric and adolescent medicine patients.
conclusionsThe creation of a weighing system accounting for complexity resulted in changes in practice closure, increased total patients, and improved access.
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.