Roles and responsibilities of family physicians on geriatric health care teams: Health care team members' perspectives.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the beliefs and attitudes of FPs and health care professionals (HCPs) regarding FPs' roles and responsibilities on interdisciplinary geriatric health care teams. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. SETTING: Calgary Health Region. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen FPs and 22 HCPs working on geriatric health care teams. METHOD: Four 90-minute focus groups were conducted with FPs, followed by 2 additional 90-minute focus groups with HCPs. The FP focus groups discussed 4 vignettes of typical teamwork scenarios. Discussions were transcribed and the 4 researchers analyzed and coded themes and subthemes and developed the HCP focus group questions. These questions asked about HCPs' expectations of FPs on teams, experiences with FPs on teams, and perspectives on optimal roles on teams. Several meetings were held to determine themes and subthemes. MAIN FINDINGS: Family physicians identified patient centredness, role delineation for team members, team dynamics, and team structure as critical to team success. Both FPs and HCPs had a continuum of beliefs about the role FPs should play on teams, including whether FPs should be autonomous or collaborative decision makers, the extent to which FPs should work within or outside teams, whether FPs should be leaders or simply members of teams, and the level of responsibility implied or explicit in their roles. CONCLUSION: Comments from FPs and HCPs identified intraprofessional and interprofessional tensions that could affect team practice and impede the development of high-functioning teams. It will be important, as primary care reform continues, to help FPs and HCPs learn how to work together effectively on teams so that patients receive the best possible care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".