ArticleJAMA network open2019
Association of a Multisite Interprofessional Education Initiative With Quality of Primary Care.
Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Interprofessional Collaborative Practices and Outcomes in Adults With Diabetes and Hypertension in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Integrating Primary Care Services into a Rural Behavioral Health Facility in Northern Arizona: Perspectives of Healthcare Providers and Administrative Staff.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Research on the application effect of inter-professional training program for newly enrolled medical staff in operating room based on digital information technology.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Interprofessional Curriculum Delivery: Experience of a Primary Care Education Program.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Culture change and lessons learned from ten years in the VA centers of excellence in primary care education.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Aiding the Adoption of Master Protocols by Optimizing Patient Engagement.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Article
- An innovative interprofessional education simulation for athletic training and prelicensure nursing students: Development, implementation, and student perspectives.Nursing forum · 2022Article
- [Interprofessional health education in the Region of the Americas from a nursing perspectiveEducação interprofissional em saúde na Região das Américas na perspectiva da enfermagem].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2022Article
- Integrating Interprofessional Trainees into a Complex Care Program for Veterans Experiencing Homelessness: Effects on Health Services Utilization.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Practical Opportunities for Biopsychosocial Education Through Strategic Interprofessional Experiences in Integrated Primary Care.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Studies have shown that interprofessional education (IPE) improves learner proficiencies, but few have measured the association of IPE with patient outcomes, such as clinical quality. Objective: To estimate the association of a multisite IPE initiative with quality of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used difference-in-differences analysis of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic health record data from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2015. Patients cared for by resident clinicians in 5 VA academic primary care clinics that participated in the Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education (CoEPCE), an initiative designed to promote IPE among physician, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, and psychologist trainees, were compared with patients cared for by resident clinicians in 5 regionally matched non-CoEPCE clinics using data for the 3 academic years (ie, July 1 to June 30) before and 4 academic years after the CoEPCE launch. Analysis was conducted from January 18, 2018, to January 17, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Among patients with diabetes, outcomes included annual hemoglobin A1c, poor hemoglobin A1c control (ie, <9% or unmeasured), and annual renal test; among patients 65 years and older, outcomes included prescription of high-risk medications; among patients with hypertension, outcomes included hypertension control (ie, blood pressure, <140/90 mm Hg); and among all patients, outcomes included timely mental health referrals, primary care mental health integrated visits, and hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. Results: A total of 44 527 patients contributed 107 686 patient-years; 49 279 (45.8%) were CoEPCE resident patient-years (mean [SD] patient age, 59.3 [15.2] years; 26 206 [53.2%] white; 8073 [16.4%] women; mean [SD] patient Elixhauser comorbidity score, 12.9 [15.1]), and 58 407 (54.2%) were non-CoEPCE resident patient-years (mean [SD] patient age, 61.8 [15.3] years; 43 912 [75.2%] white; 4915 [8.4%] women; mean [SD] patient Elixhauser comorbidity score, 13.8 [15.7]). Compared with resident clinicians who did not participate in the CoEPCE initiative, CoEPCE training was associated with improvements in the proportion of patients with diabetes with poor hemoglobin A1c control (-4.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.5 to -1.8 percentage points; P < .001), annual renal testing among patients with diabetes (3.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6 to 5.7 percentage points; P = .02), prescription of high-risk medications among patients 65 years and older (-2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.0 to -0.6 percentage points; P = .01), and timely mental health referrals (1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.6 percentage points; P = .002). Fewer patients cared for by CoEPCE resident clinicians had a hospitalization for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition compared with patients cared for by non-CoEPCE resident clinicians in non-CoEPCE clinics (-0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.0 percentage points; P = .01). Sensitivity analyses with alternative comparison groups yielded similar results. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the CoEPCE initiative was associated with modest improvements in quality of care. Implementation of IPE was associated with improvements in patient outcomes and may potentiate delivery system reform efforts.
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.