ArticleMedical care2019
Sequelae of an Evidence-based Approach to Management for Access to Care in the Veterans Health Administration.
Article in Medical care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Eight Priorities for Improving Primary Care Access Management in Healthcare Organizations: Results of a Modified Delphi Stakeholder Panel.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Associations Between Primary Care Providers and Staff-Reported Access Management Challenges and Patient Perceptions of Access.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Learning from national implementation of the Veterans Affairs Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program for improving access to care: protocol for a six year evaluation.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Beyond Information Design: Designing Health Care Dashboards for Evidence-Driven Decision-Making.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Article
- New (and Not so New) Directions in Evidence Synthesis Methods and Application in a Learning Health Care System.Medical care · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccess to health care is a critical concept in the design, delivery, and evaluation of high quality care. Meaningful evaluation of access requires research evidence and the integration of perspectives of patients, providers, and administrators.
objectiveBecause of high-profile access challenges, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) invested in research and implemented initiatives to address access management. We describe a 2-year evidence-based approach to improving access in primary care.
methodsThe approach included an Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) report, a 22-site in-person qualitative evaluation of VA initiatives, and in-person and online stakeholder panel meetings facilitated by the RAND corporation. Subsequent work products were disseminated in a targeted strategy to increase impact on policy and practice.
resultsThe ESP report summarized existing research evidence in primary care management and an evaluation of ongoing initiatives provided organizational data and novel metrics. The stakeholder panel served as a source of insights and information, as well as a knowledge dissemination vector. Work products included the ESP report, a RAND report, peer-reviewed manuscripts, presentations at key conferences, and training materials for VA Group Practice Managers. Resulting policy and practice implications are discussed.
conclusionsThe commissioning of an evidence report was the beginning of a cascade of work including exploration of unanswered questions, novel research and measurement discoveries, and policy changes and innovation. These results demonstrate what can be achieved in a learning health care system that employs evidence and expertise to address complex issues such as access management.
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.