ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2021
The Financial Cost of Interprofessional Ambulatory Training: What's the Bottom Line?
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adapting the TeamSTEPPS team performance observation tool for dyadic interprofessional VR simulations (vTPOT): a multi-step validation study.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
- Training and Assessing Teamwork in Interprofessional Virtual Reality-Based Simulation Using the TeamSTEPPS Framework: Protocol for Randomized Pre-Post Intervention Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Engagement of general practice preceptors in teaching residents in outpatient settings in China: a national cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTeam-based care is recommended as a building block of high-performing primary care but has not been widely adapted in training sites. Cost may be one barrier to a team-based approach.
objectiveWe quantified incremental annual faculty and staff costs as well as potential cost savings associated with an interprofessional (IP) ambulatory training program compared to a traditional residency clinic at the same site.
methodsCost calculations for the 2017-2018 academic year were made using US Department of Labor median salaries by profession and divided by the number of residents trained per year. Cost implications of lower no-show rates were calculated by multiplying the difference in no-show rate by the number of scheduled appointments, and then by the weighted average of the reimbursement rate.
resultsA total of 1572 arrived appointments were seen by the 10 residents in the IP program compared with 8689 arrived appointments seen by 57 residents in the traditional clinic. The no-show rate was 11.5% (265 of 2311) in the IP program and 19.2% (2532 of 13 154) in the traditional clinic (
conclusionsTotal costs of the IP model due to higher faculty and staff to resident ratios totaled $11,390 per resident per year. Understanding the faculty and staff costs and potential cost-saving opportunities associated with transformation to an IP model may assist in sustainability.
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.