ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
The Organization of Academic General Internal Medicine Practice at the Top Primary Care Schools.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. 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.
- Variation in Measures of Electronic Health Record Use Outside Scheduled Hours: A Cross-Sectional Study of Academic Primary Care Physicians.Applied clinical informatics · 2026Article
- Representation of medical specialties in dean's cabinets at the top 40 NIH-funded United States medical schools.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- The number of patient scheduled hours resulting in a 40-hour work week by physician specialty and setting: a cross-sectional study using electronic health record event log data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile prior studies have explored staffing infrastructure for primary care practices in general, little is known about the range of academic primary care practice models and supports available for academic general internists.
objectiveTo characterize the range of practice arrangements and expectations for attending academic physicians in general internal medicine (GIM) practices at the top 22 medical schools across the USA.
designCross-sectional survey administered electronically between October 30, 2022, and December 28, 2022.
participantsClinical leaders in GIM at the top 22 primary care medical schools, as identified by the 2023 US News and World Report Rankings. MAIN MEASURES: Clinical load, productivity expectations, cross-coverage, and team-based care models. KEY
resultsTwenty-two leaders responded, representing 68% (15/22) of medical schools surveyed. The practices were mostly in urban locations (18/22, 82%) and 86% (19/22) included residents. Practices ranged from 7 to 200 PCPs and from 3 to 112 clinical FTEs. A full-time (1.0 FTE) clinical role for academic attending GIM physicians entailed a median of 9 (IQR 8, 10) weekly half-day clinic sessions, with a median panel size expectation of 1600 (IQR 1450, 1850) patients and a median yearly RVU expectation of 5200 (IQR 4161, 5891) yearly RVUs generated. Staff support was most commonly present for prescription refills and patient portal message checks. It was less commonly available for time sensitive form completion. Occasional clinical coverage for other physicians was an expectation at all practices.
conclusionsIn this study, we characterize the organization of and supports available in academic GIM practices affiliated with the top primary care medical schools. Our findings provide comparative information for leaders of academic GIM practices seeking to enhance primary care delivery for their faculty and trainees. They also highlight areas where standardization may be beneficial across academic GIM.
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.