Interprofessional primary care in academic family medicine clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the status and processes of interprofessional work environments and the implications for interprofessional education in a sample of family medicine teaching clinics. Design Focus group interviews using a purposive sampling procedure. Setting Four academic family medicine clinics in Alberta. Participants Seven family physicians, 9 registered nurses, 5 licensed practical nurses, 2 residents, 1 psychologist, 1 informatics specialist, 1 pharmacist, 1 dietitian, 1 nurse practitioner, 1 receptionist, and 1 respiratory therapist. Methods Assessment of clinic status and performance in relation to established principles of interprofessional work and education was explored using semistructured focus group interviews. Main findings Our data supported the D’Amour and Oandasan model of successful interprofessional collaborative practice in terms of the model’s main “factors” (ie, shared goals and vision, sense of belonging, governance, and the structuring of clinical care) and their constituent “elements.” It is reasonable to conclude that the extent to which these factors and elements are both present and positively oriented in academic clinic settings is an important contributory factor to the establishment of interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care. Using this model, 2 of the 4 clinics were rated as expressing substantial progress in relation to interprofessional work, while the other 2 clinics were rated as less successful on that dimension. None of the clinics was identified as having a clear and explicit focus on providing interprofessional education. Conclusion The key factor in relation to the implementation of interprofessional work in primary care appears to be the existence of clear and explicit leadership in that direction. Substantial scope exists for improvement in the organization, conduct, and promotion of interprofessional education for Canadian primary 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".