Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35232781›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Primary care micro-teams: a protocol for an international systematic review to describe and examine the opportunities and challenges of implementation for patients and healthcare professionals.

Charles Richard Harvey Coombs, Tanya Cohen, Claire Duddy, Kamal Ram Mahtani, Nia Roberts, Aman Saini, Alexander Staddon Foster, Sophie Park

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Primary care micro-teams: an international systematic review of patient and healthcare professional perspectives.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Charles Richard Harvey CoombsDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL, London, UK zchacoo@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2023-6462
Tanya CohenPatient and Public Contributor, London, UK.
Claire DuddyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7083-6589
Kamal Ram MahtaniNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nia RobertsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Aman SainiUCL Medical School, London, UK.
Alexander Staddon FosterUCL Medical School, London, UK.
Sophie ParkDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere has been a recent trend towards creating larger primary care practices with the assumption that interdisciplinary teams can deliver improved and more cost-effective services to patients with better accessibility. Micro-teams have been proposed to mitigate some of the potential challenges with practice expansion, including continuity of care. We aim to review the available literature to improve understanding of how micro-teams are described and the opportunities which primary care micro-teams can provide for practice staff and patients and limitations to their introduction and implementation. Our review asks: how is micro-team implementation described? What are the experiences of healthcare professionals and patients concerning micro-teams in primary care? What are the reported implications of micro-teams for patient care? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus will be searched for studies in English. Grey literature will be sourced from Google Scholar, government websites, CCG websites, general practice directives and strategies with advice from stakeholders. Included studies will give evidence regarding the implementation of micro-teams. Data will be synthesised using framework analysis. We will use iterative stakeholder and public and patient participation to embed the perspectives of those whom micro-teams could impact. Included studies will be quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The quality assessment will not be used to exclude any evidence but rather to develop a narrative discussion evaluating included literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be necessary for this systematic review as there will only be a secondary analysis of data already available in scientific databases and the grey literature. This protocol has been submitted for registration to be made available on a review database (PROSPERO). Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and in various media, for example, conferences, congresses or symposia. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021225367.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPrimary Health CareResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as Topicchange managementhealth services administration & managementorganisational developmentorganisation of health services

Identifiers

PMID35232781
PMCPMC8889310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.