ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2023
Comparison of Ambulatory Quality Measures Between Shared Practice Panels and Independent Practice Panels.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Understanding Remission of Long-Term Conditions Through Electronic Health Records: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess for differences in patient care outcomes in the primary care setting for patients assigned to an independent practice panel (IPP) or a shared practice panel (SPP). Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of patients of 2 Mayo Clinic family medicine primary care clinics from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. Patients were assigned to either an IPP (physician or advanced practice provider [APP]) or an SPP (physician and ≥1 APP). We assessed 6 measures of quality care and compared them between IPP and SPP groups: diabetes optimal care, hypertension control, depression remission at 6 months, breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and colon cancer screening. Results: The study included 114,438 patients assigned to 140 family medicine panels during the study period: 87 IPPs and 53 SPPs. The IPP clinicians showed improved quality metrics compared with the SPP clinicians for the percentage of assigned patients achieving depression remission (16.6% vs 11.1%; Conclusion: This study shows a considerable improvement in depression remission among IPP panels and in cervical cancer screening rates among SPP panels. This information may help to inform primary care team configuration.
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.