ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Addressing the Burden of Asynchronous Work to Promote Clinician Retention in Ambulatory General Internal Medicine Practices.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe growing burden of asynchronous work-such as managing messages, test results, and care coordination-has contributed to clinician burnout and attrition in primary care.
objectiveTo develop and evaluate scheduling templates that allocate time for asynchronous work during clinic sessions and assess their impact on clinicians, patients, and clinical operations.
designWe conducted a two-phase Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement initiative at four academic internal medicine clinics in metropolitan Denver. PDSA1 tested five alternative templates with asynchronous work blocks over 3 months for feasibility. PDSA2 evaluated the preferred template over 6 months for effects on clinician and patient satisfaction, clinician career plans, clinical quality, productivity, and access.
participantsIn total, 27 attending physicians and APPs volunteered for the intervention group in PDSA1; 43 in PDSA2.
interventionClinical schedule templates with blocked time for non-patient-facing work. MAIN MEASURES: Survey items on career plans and clinician satisfaction, A1C and hypertension control, breast cancer screening, patient satisfaction, wRVUs, visit volume, and access (appointments made within 14 days). KEY
resultsClinicians in PDSA1 favored a template with asynchronous time embedded in regular sessions with staff support present. Evaluating the preferred schedule template in PDSA2, clinician satisfaction improved (+ 2.25 on a -3 to + 3 scale), and the intention to continue clinical practice effort rose (from 8/37 to 20/34). Clinical quality and patient satisfaction remained stable. Visit volume dropped (-18.3 visits/EffcFTE/month, p < 0.01), but wRVUs were unaffected (-3.2 wRVUs/EffcFTE/month, p = 0.89). Access declined for both intervention and reference groups (-10% vs. -4%). A focus group emphasized enhanced clinician autonomy and control as key benefits.
conclusionsIntegrating asynchronous work time into clinic schedules appeared to improve clinician satisfaction and retention without compromising care quality or wRVU productivity, while visit volume and access saw modest declines. This approach may support primary care workforce stability amid increasing asynchronous demands.
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.