ArticlePostgraduate medicine2020
Redesigning primary care in an academic medical center: lessons, challenges, and opportunities.
Article in Postgraduate medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Variation in Organizational Definitions of Primary Care Panels: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Quality of Medication Cost Conversations and Interest in Future Cost Conversations Among Older Adults.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate patient access, provider productivity, and patient satisfaction during a 24-month redesign process of an academic medical center, which requires balance between clinical and educational missions.
methodsA series of activities were conducted to optimize primary care across 17 attending physicians, 6 Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), and 39 residents. Patient access was defined as the next available appointment for either existing/established patients or new patients. Productivity was measured using panel sizes for each provider. Patient satisfaction was based on the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CGCAHPS).
resultsDespite decreasing clinical effort to allow faculty and APPs to participate in education and research, there was an overall increase in access for both new and established patients, and an increase the percent of each providers' panel that was full from 78.89% in 2017 to 115.29% in 2019. When comparing panel sizes for the 11 faculty present before and after strategic changes, we found significant increase in both overall panel size, and actual to expected ratios between 2017 and 2019. In addition, throughout the time period, patient satisfaction remained high with no significant changes.
conclusionsWhile this project was limited to one site, the inclusion of a set of well-planned metrics, and tracking of processes over time can provide insight for ongoing primary care redesign efforts at similar sites seeking to balance the academic mission with clinical productivity and high patient satisfaction.
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.