Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31285215›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine2019

Powering-Up Primary Care Teams: Advanced Team Care With In-Room Support.

Christine A Sinsky, Thomas Bodenheimer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Primary care staff members' experiences with managing electronic health record inbox messages.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Electronic Health Record Inbox: Recommendations for Relief.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022
    Article
  17. COVID-Related Stress and Work Intentions in a Sample of US Health Care Workers.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

2 authors.

Christine A SinskyAmerican Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Thomas BodenheimerUniversity of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California Tombodie3@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary care teams are underpowered. Teams do not maximally redistribute team functions when clinicians are diverted from activities where they add the most value. This commentary describes "advanced team care with in-room support" as a way to "power-up" primary care teams. In this core team model, each clinician is paired with 2 or 3 highly trained medical assistants or nurses-care team coordinators (CTCs).Early evidence suggests that this model is more satisfying to clinicians, staff, and patients and is financially sustainable. Yet its spread has been hobbled by several misguided beliefs, such as that the physician can and should do most tasks, that technology replaces people, that health care is a transactional endeavor more than a therapeutic relationship, that regulation is the main lever by which to advance quality, and that the principal way to increase net revenue is to reduce overhead. A shift in mindset is needed to energize primary care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDelivery of Health CareHumansPatient Care TeamPhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health Carepatient care teamprimary care

Identifiers

PMID31285215
PMCPMC6827653

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.