Team-based Primary Care Models Research Articles

Cancer Screening Disparities Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer-screening disparities existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is unclear whether those have changed since the pandemic. To assess whether changes in screening from before the pandemic to after the pandemic varied for immigrants and for people with limited income. This population-based, cross-sectional study, using data from March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2022, included adults in Ontario, Canada, the country's most populous province, with more than 14 million people, almost 30% of whom are immigrants. At both dates, the screening-eligible population for each cancer type was assessed. Neighborhood income quintile, immigrant status, and primary care model type. For each cancer screening type, the main outcome was whether the screening-eligible population was up to date on screening (a binary outcome) on March 31, 2019, and March 31, 2022. Up to date on screening was defined as having had a mammogram in the previous 2 years, a Papanicolaou test in the previous 3 years, and a fecal test in the previous 2 years or a flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the previous 10 years. The overall cohort on March 31, 2019, included 1 666 943 women (100%) eligible for breast screening (mean [SD] age, 59.9 [5.1] years), 3 918 225 women (100%) eligible for cervical screening (mean [SD] age, 45.5 [13.2] years), and 3 886 345 people eligible for colorectal screening (51.4% female; mean [SD] age, 61.8 [6.4] years). The proportion of people up to date on screening in Ontario decreased for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, with the largest decrease for breast screening (from 61.1% before the pandemic to 51.7% [difference, -9.4 percentage points]) and the smallest decrease for colorectal screening (from 65.9% to 62.0% [difference, -3.9 percentage points]). Preexisting disparities in screening for people living in low-income neighborhoods and for immigrants widened for breast screening and colorectal screening. For breast screening, compared with income quintile 5 (highest), the β estimate for income quintile 1 (lowest) was -1.16 (95% CI, -1.56 to -0.77); for immigrant vs nonimmigrant, the β estimate was -1.51 (95% CI, -1.84 to -1.18). For colorectal screening, compared with income quintile 5, the β estimate for quntile 1 was -1.29 (95% CI, 16 -1.53 to -1.06); for immigrant vs nonimmigrant, the β estimate was -1.41 (95% CI, -1.61 to -1.21). The lowest screening rates both before and after the COVID-19 pandemic were for people who had no identifiable family physician (eg, moving from 11.3% in 2019 to 9.6% in 2022 up to date for breast cancer). In addition, patients of interprofessional, team-based primary care models had significantly smaller reductions in β estimates for breast (2.14 [95% CI, 1.79 to 2.49]), cervical (1.72 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.98]), and colorectal (2.15 [95% CI, 1.95 to 2.36]) postpandemic screening and higher uptake of screening in general compared with patients of other primary care models. In this cross-sectional study in Ontario that included 2 time points, widening disparities before compared with after the COVID-19 pandemic were found for breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening based on income and immigrant status, but smaller declines in disparities were found among patients of interprofessional, team-based primary care models than among their counterparts. Policy makers should investigate the value of prioritizing and investing in improving access to team-based primary care for people who are immigrants and/or with limited income.

Delivering Team-Based Primary Care for the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: An Interpretive Description Qualitative Study of Healthcare Provider Perspectives

ABSTRACT Background Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and disabling health issue. Team-based models of primary care are ideally positioned to provide comprehensive care for patients with chronic LBP. A better understanding of primary care team perspectives can inform future efforts to improve how team-based care is provided for patients with chronic LBP in this practice setting. Aims The aim of this study was to understand health care providers’ experiences, perceived barriers and facilitators, and recommendations when providing team-based primary care for the management of chronic LBP. Methods We conducted an interpretive description qualitative study based on focus group discussions with health care providers from team-based primary care settings in Ontario, Canada. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results We conducted five focus groups with five different primary care teams, including a total of 31 health care providers. We constructed four themes (each with subthemes) related to experiences, perceived barriers and facilitators, and recommendations to providing team-based primary care for the management of chronic LBP, including (1) care pathways and models of service delivery, (2) team processes and organization, (3) team culture and environment, and (4) patient needs and readiness. Conclusions Primary care teams are implementing diverse care pathways and models of service delivery for the management of patients with chronic LBP, which can be influenced by patient, team, and organizational factors. Results have potential implications for future research and practice innovations to improve how team-based primary care is delivered for patients with chronic LBP.

Impact of remuneration, extrinsic and intrinsic incentives on interprofessional primary care teams: protocol for a rapid scoping review

IntroductionInterprofessional teams and funding and payment provider arrangements are key attributes of high-performing primary care. Several Canadian jurisdictions have introduced team-based models with different payment models. Despite these investments, the...

Financial Incentives for Medical Assistants: A Mixed-Methods Exploration of Bonus Structures, Motivation, and Population Health Quality Measures.

Medical assistants (MAs) have seen their roles expand as a result of team-based primary care models. Unlike their physician counterparts, MAs rarely receive financial incentives as a part of their compensation. This exploratory study aims to understand MA acceptability of financial incentives and perceived MA control over common population health measures. We conducted semistructured focus groups between August and December of 2019 across 10 clinics affiliated with 3 institutions in California and Utah. MAs' perceptions of experienced and hypothetical financial incentives, their potential influence on workflow processes, and perceived levels of control over population health measures were discussed, recorded, and qualitatively analyzed for emerging themes. Perceived levels of control were further quantified using a Likert survey; measures were grouped into factors representing vaccinations, and workflow completed in the same day or multiple days (multiday). Mean scores for each factor were compared using repeated 1-way ANOVA with Tukey-Kramer adjustment. MAs reported little direct experience with financial incentives. They indicated that a hypothetical bonus representing 2% to 3% of their average annual base pay would be acceptable and influential in improving consistent performance during patient rooming workflow. MAs reported having greater perceived control over vaccinations (P <.001) and same-day measures (P <.001) as compared with multiday measures. MAs perceived that relatively small financial incentives would increase their motivation and quality of care. Our findings suggests target measures should focus on MA work processes that are completed in the same day as the patient encounter, particularly vaccinations. Future investigation is needed to understand the effectiveness of MA financial incentives in practice.

Examining the extent and factors associated with interprofessional teamwork in primary care settings

ABSTRACT Despite growing emphasis on adopting team-based models of primary care to facilitate patient access to a diverse range of care providers, our understanding of team functioning within primary care teams remains limited. This study examined interprofessional teamwork within primary care practices (Family Health Teams [FHT] and Community Health Centers – [CHC]) in Ontario and explored team-level and organizational factors associated with interprofessional teamwork. Interprofessional teamwork was measured using the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool (CPAT), which was completed by providers in each participating team. The CPAT responses of 988 providers representing on average 12 professions (sd = 2.1) across 66 teams (44 FHTs and 22 CHCs) were included in the analysis. The average CPAT score was 46.6 (sd = 2.5). CHCs had significantly higher CPAT scores than FHTs (mdiff = 1.7, p = .02). Using diverse communication mechanisms to share information, increasing quality improvement capacities, and age of practice, had a statistically significant positive association with CPAT scores. Increasing team size, using centralized administrative processes, a high level of information exchange, and having a mixed governance board were significantly negatively associated with CPAT score. Findings illustrate factors associated with interprofessional teamwork and offer insight into the comparative performance of two team-based primary care models in Ontario.

The team-based care models in primary care: General Practitioners' perspectives on nurses' role.

In the last decade in Italy, different team-based primary care models have been developed that involve the collaboration of General Practitioners (GPs) with other professionals, such as nurses. To investigate the GPs attitude towards the role and levels of autonomy of nurses in the primary care settings. A two-phase exploratory study was performed: 1) a focus group with a purposeful sample of 12 GPs was conducted to identify the potential patients-clients/problems and activities that might be assigned to nurses; 2) a questionnaire was developed to analyze the levels of autonomy GPs assigned to nurses for different patients-clients/problems and activities. The questionnaire was administered to a convenience sample of 45 GPs, who were also interviewed to explain their choices. GPs recognized autonomy to nurses in the assessment, monitoring and education on lifestyles, prevention of falls, malnutrition and compliance with treatments; in performing technical and organizational activities. They believed necessary supervision or providing indications to nurses in the management of chronic patients, especially in the assessment of signs and symptoms of deterioration, in monitoring and follow-up and partly on the contents of health education. Finally, GPs felt responsible of the management of pluri-pathological and unstable patients, such as heart failure patients, due to their highly unpredictable and rapid deterioration. GPs expressed a positive attitude towards the role of nurses in the primary care setting, which varied depending on patients' instability and clinical complexity.

Measuring the extent and drivers of integration within primary care teams

Introduction: Given its core attributes as the gateway to the health system, the primary care sector is increasingly emphasized as a key player in the integration of care across providers and settings. Ontario’s primary care sector has evolved considerably with the introduction of new inter-disciplinary models of primary care, including Family Health Teams FHTs and Community Health Centres CHC. However, our understanding of the specific features that enable integration within primary care teams is limited. This study sought to examine the extent and drivers of intra-organizational integration collaboration within team-based primary care models in Ontario specifically FHTs and CHCs. Methods: Organizational features i.e., information technology [IT] capacities, information exchange, and rurality etc. and team characteristics size and provider attributes were assessed via the Organizational Profile Questionnaire, which was completed by the Executive Director for each CHC/FHT. Intra-organizational integration was measured using the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool CPAT - a validated survey instrument, designed to measure collaboration within healthcare teams. All providers involved in care delivery were invited to complete the CPAT. A multi-variate linear regression analysis was conducted to explore the drivers of CPAT scores. Results: A total of 44/73 CHCs 60% participation rate participated in this study, and 738 providers from a broad range of disciplines completed the CPAT. The response rate across CHCs was 45%, and 10% of respondents were male. Average age and length of employment were 43 years and 7 years respectively, and roster/panel size was approximately 4600 patients. The average CPAT score for CHCs was 47.21 SD = 1.97, Median: 47.25, Min: 43.74 and Max: 52.01. Regression analyses revealed that rurality, number of years in operation, roster/panel size, number of practice locations, IT capacity and information exchange were statistically significant predictors of CPAT scores. Data collection in FHTs is underway. Discussion: The negative association between roster/panel size and CPAT score reflects qualitative insights around time constraints faced by providers in their effort to collaborate effectively within teams. Increasing the number of practice locations was associated with a lower CPAT score indicating challenges associated with dispersion, whereas rurality was associated with a higher CPAT score. A high level of IT capacity was associated with a higher CPAT score - illustrating the role of technology in promoting integration efforts. In contrast, high levels of information exchange were associated with a lower CPAT score. Conclusions: A narrow distribution of CPAT scores was observed for CHCs. Organizational features, specifically IT capacity, rurality and years in operation are important enablers of integration within CHCs. Lessons learned: Team characteristics including size and provider attributes were not associated with CPAT scores. The inverse relationship between information exchange and CPAT score indicates possible gaps in perceptions of information exchange between executive leadership and individual providers. Limitations: Since participation was optional there is potential for selection bias. Given the cross-sectional study design, changes in intra-organizational integration over time cannot be ascertained. Suggestions for future research: Examining the association between integration within primary care teams and key system and patient-level outcomes are important next steps.

Capsule Commentary on Misra-Hebert et al., Implementing Team-Based Primary Care Models: A Mixed-Methods Comparative Case Study in a Large, Integrated Health Care System.

Capsule Commentary on Misra-Hebert et al., Implementing Team-Based Primary Care Models: A Mixed-Methods Comparative Case Study in a Large, Integrated Health Care System.

"It's Really Overwhelming": Patient Perspectives on Care Coordination.

Failures of care coordination among health care providers are known to lead to poorer health outcomes for patients with complex medical needs. However, there has been limited research into the perspectives of patients who receive care from a variety of health care providers. This qualitative study sought to characterize the factors leading to emergency department (ED) patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their care coordination. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 25 adult patients following ED visits about their experiences with their care coordination. All patients interviewed had 2 or more ED visits and hospitalizations in the past year and/or health providers in more than one health system. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed following a modified grounded theory approach. Four broad categories of themes emerged from the patient interviews covering the following: (1) perceptions of care coordination between their providers, (2) the role of electronic health records, (3) challenges with information exchange between health systems, and (4) sources of support for care coordination activities, emphasizing the important role of the primary care provider. Patients with multiple health care providers identified significant barriers to communication among providers and inadequate support with care coordination activities. Expansion of team-based models of primary care and prioritizing interoperable technology for sharing patient health information between providers will be critical to improving the patient experience and the safety of transitions of care.

Implementing team-based primary care models: a mixed-methods comparative case study in a large, integrated health care system

Successful implementation of new care models within a health system is likely dependent on contextual factors at the individual sites of care. To identify practice setting components contributing to uptake of new team-based care models. Convergent mixed-methods design. Employees and patients of primary care practices implementing two team-based models in a large, integrated health system. Field observations of 9 practices and 75 interviews, provider and staff surveys to assess adaptive reserve and burnout, analysis of quality metrics, and patient panel comorbidity scores. The data were collected simultaneously, then merged, thematically analyzed, and interpreted by a multidisciplinary team. Based on analysis of observations and interviews, the 9 practices were categorized into 3 groups-high, partial, and low uptake of new team-based models. Uptake was related to (1) practices' responsiveness to change and (2) flexible workflow as related to team roles. Strength of local leadership and stable staffing mediated practices' ability to achieve high performance in these two domains. Higher performance on several quality metrics was associated with high uptake practices compared to the lower uptake groups. Mean Adaptive Reserve Measure and Maslach Burnout Inventory scores did not differ significantly between higher and lower uptake practices. Uptake of new team-based care delivery models is related to practices' ability to respond to change and to adapt team roles in workflow, influenced by both local leadership and stable staffing. Better performance on quality metrics may identify high uptake practices. Our findings can inform expectations for operational and policy leaders seeking to implement change in primary care practices.

Expanding the role of clinical pharmacists on interdisciplinary primary care teams for chronic pain and opioid management

BackgroundFacilitating appropriate and safe prescribing of opioid medications for chronic pain management in primary care is a pressing public health concern. Interdisciplinary team-based models of primary care are exploring the expansion of clinical pharmacist roles to support disease management for chronic conditions, e.g. pain. Our study aims to 1) identify roles clinical pharmacists can assume in primary care team based chronic pain care processes and 2) understand the barriers to assuming these expanded roles.MethodsSetting: Veterans Health Administration (VA) has implemented an interdisciplinary team-based model for primary care which includes clinical pharmacists. Design: We employed an inductive two part qualitative approach including focus groups and semi-structured interviews with key informants. Participants: 60 members of VA primary care teams in two states participated in nine preliminary interdisciplinary focus groups where a semi-structured interview guide elucidated provider experiences with screening for and managing chronic pain. To follow up on emergent themes relating to clinical pharmacist roles, an additional 14 primary care providers and clinical pharmacists were interviewed individually. We evaluated focus group and interview transcripts using the method of constant comparison and produced mutually agreed upon themes.ResultsClinical pharmacists were identified by primary care providers as playing a central role with the ongoing management of opioid therapy including review of the state prescription drug monitoring program, managing laboratory screening, providing medication education, promoting naloxone use, and opioid tapering. Specific barriers to clinical pharmacists role expansion around pain care include: limitations of scopes of practice, insufficient institutional support (low staffing, dedicated time, insufficient training, lack of interdisciplinary leadership support), and challenges and opportunities for disseminating clinical pharmacists’ expanded roles.ConclusionsExpanding the role of the clinical pharmacist to collaborate with providers around primary care based chronic pain management is a promising strategy for improving pain management on an interdisciplinary primary care team. However, expanded roles have to be balanced with competing responsibilities relating to other conditions. Interdisciplinary leadership is needed to facilitate training, resources, adequate staffing, as well as to prepare both clinical pharmacists and the providers they support, about expanded clinical pharmacists’ scopes of practice and capabilities.

Team functioning as a predictor of patient outcomes in early medical home implementation

New models of patient-centered primary care such as the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) depend on high levels of interdisciplinary primary care team functioning to achieve improved outcomes. A few studies have qualitatively assessed barriers and facilitators to optimal team functioning; however, we know of no prior study that assesses PCMH team functioning in relationship to patient health outcomes. The aim of the study was to assess the relationships between primary care team functioning, patients' use of acute care, and mortality. Retrospective longitudinal cohort analysis of patient outcomes measured at two time points (2012 and 2013) after PCMH implementation began in Veterans Health Administration practices. Multilevel models examined practice-level measures of team functioning in relationship to patient outcomes (all-cause and ambulatory care-sensitive condition-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and mortality). We controlled for practice-level factors likely to affect team functioning, including leadership support, provider and staff burnout, and staffing sufficiency, as well as for individual patient characteristics. We also tested the model among a subgroup of vulnerable patients (homeless, mentally ill, or with dementia). In adjusted analyses, higher team functioning was associated with lower mortality (OR = 0.92, p = .04) among all patients and with fewer all-cause admissions (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.90, p < 0.01), ambulatory care-sensitive condition-related admissions (IRR = 0.91, p = .04), and emergency department visits (IRR = 0.91, p = .03) in the vulnerable patient subgroup. These early findings give support for the importance of team functioning within PCMH models for achieving improved patient outcomes. A focus on team functioning is important especially in the early implementation of team-based primary care models.

Incentives and disincentives for treating of depression and anxiety in Ontario Family Health Teams: protocol for a grounded theory study

IntroductionThere is strong consensus that prevention and management of common mental disorders (CMDs) should occur in primary care and evidence suggests that treatment of CMDs in these settings can be...

Role expansion on interprofessional primary care teams: Barriers of role self-efficacy among clinical associates

BackgroundInterprofessional team-based models of primary care that expand the role of clinical associates (CAs) are increasingly adopted in primary care practices. In this study we query team members of a newly implemented patient centered medical home (PCMH) to identify facilitators and barriers of occupational role self-efficacy, a belief of possessing the capacity to execute their new team based role effectively. Methods79 key informants, members of primary care teams at six Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinics, were interviewed to assess their experiences with implementing expanded roles for CAs. All sites had implemented Patient Aligned Care Teams, the VA's version of PCMH. ResultsThree themes that produced the self-efficacy necessary for successful role expansion of CAs were identified: (1) role training (2) time and resources for roles and (3) cross-disciplinary role agreement. Sub-themes emerged around role challenges. Training sub themes included incomplete or limited training, inconsistencies in trainings within a site, and not receiving training with team members. Insufficient resources sub-themes included limited time for expanded tasks, inadequate space, low staffing, and poor task mix. Cross-disciplinary agreement failed to occur specifically when there was insufficient coordination between medicine and nursing leadership about staff roles, poor primary care provider (PCPs) knowledge of the boundaries of staff roles, and lack of synchronicity between staff roles and what PCPs would like staff roles to include. ConclusionsThese identified themes have implications for healthcare professionals working in interprofessional teams in a variety of settings and indicate the need for interdisciplinary leadership based solutions. ImplicationsClarifying the factors that impact self-efficacy for the role expansion of PACT staff can inform strategies for role transformation for enhanced primary care delivery.

Primary Care Teams

Recent studies suggest that team-based primary care models could contribute to eliminating the predicted physician shortages. In this article, the authors explore existing team-based clinical care delivery models, comparing specialist and primary care teams, that include patient-centered medical homes and accountable care organizations. Next, the authors describe the barriers to adopting these models on a large scale, particularly the regulatory, financial, and cultural factors as well as scope of practice considerations for nonphysician providers. The authors' aim is not to evaluate the merits of team-based primary care models but, rather, to ascertain whether such models should be at the center of current physician workforce planning policies. The authors argue that although emerging evidence indicates that primary care teams can improve patient outcomes, few data exist to suggest that these models will drastically reduce the need for additional physicians or other providers. Thus, the authors conclude that additional research is needed to evaluate the ability of such models to alleviate provider deficits. And, while policy makers should work toward their ideal health care system, they also must expand the physician workforce to meet the growing demand for health care services in the existing one.

A framework to support team-based models of primary care within the Australian health care system.

Health systems with strong primary care orientations are known to be associated with improved equity, better access for patients to appropriate services at lower costs, and improved population health. Team-based models of primary care have emerged in response to health system challenges due to complex patient profiles, patient expectations and health system demands. Successful team-based models of primary care require a combination of interprofessional education and learning; organisational and management policies and systems; and practice support systems. To ensure evidence is put into practice, we propose a framework comprising five domains (theory, implementation, infrastructure, sustainability and evaluation) to assist policymakers, educators, researchers, managers and health professionals in supporting team-based models of primary care within the Australian health care system.

A framework to support team-based models of primary care within the Australian health care system

A framework to support team-based models of primary care within the Australian health care system