Observational studyJournal of primary care & community health
A Longitudinal Evaluation of a Novel Short-Term Staffing and Telehealth Program: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Observational study in Journal of primary care & community health. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrimary care is foundational to health, but provider shortages impact access. In the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Clinical Resource Hubs (CRH) provide remote clinicians to alleviate short term staffing gaps.
methodsA longitudinal analysis of primary care clinics from October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2024, was conducted. CRH user clinics were those with ≥10 CRH visits/month in 2 consecutive months. A time-varying measure of minimal threshold CRH use (ie, ≥10 CRH visits/month) was also constructed. Outcomes were measured monthly, including established and new patient wait time, third next available appointment (ie, average time to the third open appointment in provider schedule), timely care, and an indicator that 80% of new patients were seen within 20 days. Using a within-between model framework, generalized linear mixed models with robust standard errors assessed the association between CRH use and access to care.
resultsOverall, 37.1% of VHA primary care clinics (N = 366) were CRH users In adjusted models, clinics meeting the time-varying minimal threshold for CRH use versus not was associated with an increase in established patient wait time (β = .35 day, SE = 0.07,
conclusionsWhen CRH was engaged, clinics had marginally longer wait times. Though CRHs have provided remote staffing, additional efficiencies may be needed to close access gaps.
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.