ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Is Adopting a Microteams Model a Solution to Delivering Continuity of Care in Modern Primary Care?
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundThere is extensive literature on the benefits of Continuity of Care (CoC) with the same General Practitioner (GP), including improved healthcare outcomes, increased satisfaction, and reduced costs. Models such as microteams are being explored to sustain continuity amid rising demand and workforce challenges. However, there is limited evidence describing their implementation or the monitoring of continuity during organisational change.AimTo describe a real-world approach to implementing microteams and monitoring CoC, and to explore the association between microteam implementation and CoC within a large Primary Care Network (PCN).Design and SettingObservational before-and-after study conducted in a large multi-site PCN serving 46,500 patients across eight sites between March 2022 and March 2024.MethodCoC was measured using the Usual Provider of Care (UPC) index, representing the proportion of consultations with the same GP or GPs within a microteam. UPC scores before implementation (March 2022-March 2023) were compared with scores after implementation (March 2023-March 2024) using t-tests.ResultsTwelve microteams were implemented across the PCN. Among patients with ≥3 GP appointments, the UPC score increased from 0.034 to 0.358 (p<0.001). Across all patients with GP appointments, the UPC score increased from 0.033 to 0.375 (p<0.001). Excluding urgent care appointments produced similar results (UPC 0.355). Patient satisfaction also improved following implementation, although findings should be interpreted in the context of concurrent organisational changes, including a practice merger.ConclusionMicroteams can be implemented within a large multi-site PCN, and continuity of care can be monitored using routinely collected data. Implementation was associated with substantially higher UPC scores, suggesting improved team-based continuity. Although causality cannot be inferred from this uncontrolled service evaluation, the model may provide a pragmatic approach to supporting continuity in large multidisciplinary primary care organisations.
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.