MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2387779734

Potential of physician assistants to support primary care Evaluating their introduction at 6 primary care and family medicine sites

2016· article· en· W2387779734 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Bowen, Ingrid Botting, Lori-Anne Huebner, Brock Wright, Beth Beaupre, Sheldon Permack, Ian Rees Jones, Ainslie Mihlachuk, Jeanette Edwards, Chris Rhule

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsConcordia HospitalUniversity of ManitobaCanadian Association of Emergency PhysiciansCentre for Family MedicineManitoba HealthWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupPrimary careFamily medicineObservational studyMedicineNursingDeskPhysician assistantsHealth careNurse practitioners
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine effective strategies for introducing physician assistants (PAs) in primary care settings and provide guidance to support ongoing provincial planning for PA roles in primary care. DESIGN: Time-series research design using multiple qualitative methods. SETTING: Manitoba. PARTICIPANTS: Physician assistants, supervising family physicians, clinic staff, members of the Introducing Physician Assistants into Primary Care Steering Committee, and patients receiving care from PAs. METHODS: The PA role was evaluated at 6 health care sites between 2012 and 2014; sites varied in size, funding models, geographic locations (urban or rural), specifics of the PA role, and setting type (clinic or hospital). Semistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted; patient feedback on quality improvement was retrieved; observational methods were employed; and documents were reviewed. A baseline assessment was conducted before PA placement. In 2013, there was a series of interviews and focus groups about the introduction of PAs at the 3 initial sites; in 2014 interviews and focus groups included all 6 sites. MAIN FINDINGS: The concerns that were expressed during baseline interviews about the introduction of PAs (eg, community and patient acceptance) informed planning. Most concerns that were identified did not materialize. Supervising family physicians, site staff, and patients were enthusiastic about the introduction of PAs. There were a few challenges experienced at the site level (eg, front-desk scheduling), but they were perceived as manageable. Unanticipated challenges at the provincial level were identified (eg, diagnostic test ordering). Increased attachment and improved access—the goals of introducing PAs to primary care—were only some of the positive effects that were reported. CONCLUSION: This first systematic multisite evaluation of PAs in primary care in Canada demonstrated that with appropriate collaborative planning, PAs can effectively integrate into primary care settings in a short period of time, with high acceptance from stakeholders. Further research is required to measure the effects of introducing PAs to health care centres and to provide direction for future outcome assessments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207