PURPOSE: Assess effectiveness of Primary Care 2.0: a team-based model that incorporates increased medical assistant (MA) to primary care physician (PCP) ratio, integration of advanced practice clinicians, expanded MA roles, and extended the interprofessional team. METHODS: Prospective, quasi-experimental evaluation of staff/clinician team development and wellness survey data, comparing Primary Care 2.0 to conventional clinics within our academic health care system. We surveyed before the model launch and every 6-9 months up to 24 months post implementation. Secondary outcomes (cost, quality metrics, patient satisfaction) were assessed via routinely collected operational data. RESULTS: Team development significantly increased in the Primary Care 2.0 clinic, sustained across all 3 post implementation time points (+12.2, +8.5, + 10.1 respectively, vs baseline, on the 100-point Team Development Measure) relative to the comparison clinics. Among wellness domains, only "control of work" approached significant gains (+0.5 on a 5-point Likert scale, P = .05), but was not sustained. Burnout did not have statistically significant relative changes; the Primary Care 2.0 site showed a temporal trend of improvement at 9 and 15 months. Reversal of this trend at 2 years corresponded to contextual changes, specifically, reduced MA to PCP staffing ratio. Adjusted models confirmed an inverse relationship between team development and burnout (P <.0001). Secondary outcomes generally remained stable between intervention and comparison clinics with suggestion of labor cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: The Primary Care 2.0 model of enhanced team-based primary care demonstrates team development is a plausible key to protect against burnout, but is not sufficient alone. The results reinforce that transformation to team-based care cannot be a 1-time effort and institutional commitment is integral.
PURPOSE: Assess effectiveness of Primary Care 2.0: a team-based model that incorporates increased medical assistant (MA) to primary care physician (PCP) ratio, integration of advanced practice clinicians, expanded MA roles, and extended the interprofessional team. METHODS: Prospective, quasi-experimental evaluation of staff/clinician team development and wellness survey data, comparing Primary Care 2.0 to conventional clinics within our academic health care system. We surveyed before the model launch and every 6-9 months up to 24 months post implementation. Secondary outcomes (cost, quality metrics, patient satisfaction) were assessed via routinely collected operational data. RESULTS: Team development significantly increased in the Primary Care 2.0 clinic, sustained across all 3 post implementation time points (+12.2, +8.5, + 10.1 respectively, vs baseline, on the 100-point Team Development Measure) relative to the comparison clinics. Among wellness domains, only "control of work" approached significant gains (+0.5 on a 5-point Likert scale, P = .05), but was not sustained. Burnout did not have statistically significant relative changes; the Primary Care 2.0 site showed a temporal trend of improvement at 9 and 15 months. Reversal of this trend at 2 years corresponded to contextual changes, specifically, reduced MA to PCP staffing ratio. Adjusted models confirmed an inverse relationship between team development and burnout (P <.0001). Secondary outcomes generally remained stable between intervention and comparison clinics with suggestion of labor cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: The Primary Care 2.0 model of enhanced team-based primary care demonstrates team development is a plausible key to protect against burnout, but is not sufficient alone. The results reinforce that transformation to team-based care cannot be a 1-time effort and institutional commitment is integral.
Authors: Shasha Han; Tait D Shanafelt; Christine A Sinsky; Karim M Awad; Liselotte N Dyrbye; Lynne C Fiscus; Mickey Trockel; Joel Goh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joseph A Simonetti; Philip W Sylling; Karin Nelson; Leslie Taylor; David C Mohr; Idamay Curtis; Gordon Schectman; Stephan D Fihn; Christian D Helfrich Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2017 Apr/Jun
Authors: Maryam S Hamidi; Bryan Bohman; Christy Sandborg; Rebecca Smith-Coggins; Patty de Vries; Marisa S Albert; Mary Lou Murphy; Dana Welle; Mickey T Trockel Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Greg Ogrinc; Louise Davies; Daisy Goodman; Paul Batalden; Frank Davidoff; David Stevens Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Bethany M Kwan; Mika K Hamer; Austin Bailey; Kathy Cebuhar; Colleen Conry; Peter C Smith Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 6.473