ArticleFamily medicine and community health2026
Clinical accountability in fragmented primary care for older adults: a practical framework for minimal multidimensional assessment and targeted testing in community and home-based settings.
Article in Family medicine and community health, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fragmented care in older adults often results in duplicated testing, delayed decision-making and unclear clinical responsibility. These challenges are particularly pronounced in community and home-based primary care settings, where multiple providers contribute to care without formal coordination structures. Although comprehensive multidimensional geriatric evaluation is recommended, its complexity limits routine implementation. This article proposes a pragmatic framework integrating assessment of daily functioning, cognitive screening, mood assessment and mobility evaluation with targeted laboratory testing guided by clinical findings. A central principle of this model is clinical accountability, defined as the responsibility of the clinician who performs assessment and interprets findings to integrate diagnostic results into patient management and follow-up. In this framework, accountability refers specifically to responsibility for documenting findings, initiating appropriate follow-up evaluation and ensuring communication of clinically significant results. By linking brief multidimensional assessment, problem-oriented testing and explicit responsibility for follow-up, this practice-informed communication offers a pragmatic, adaptable approach for family physicians and community-based clinicians working in fragmented care environments. It is presented as a practice-informed proposal rather than a validated framework, consensus statement or guideline.
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.