Perceptions, practice, and “ownership:” experiences in continuity of the patient-doctor relationship in a family medicine residency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this mixed-methods study was to determine interpersonal continuity (the ongoing therapeutic relationship between patient and health care provider) experiences of family medicine residents and preceptors, and explore their perceptions of interpersonal continuity. METHODS: Quantitative data on resident and preceptor encounters were extracted from the electronic medical record (EMR). Opportunities for developing interpersonal continuity were determined using the Usual Provider Continuity (UPC) Index. A qualitative descriptive research method was used for the qualitative portion. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and constant comparative analysis was used to determine emerging themes. RESULTS: Residents were found to have low UPC rates; preceptor rates were higher. Qualitative findings showed variable experiences with interpersonal continuity not apparent from UPC rates. Both preceptors and residents expressed perception of "ownership" of patients as a significant barrier to interpersonal continuity. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a perceived lack of individual "ownership" of a patient panel was a significant barrier to developing interpersonal continuity. This might conflict with current changes towards team-based health care delivery. Understanding perceptions and changing them through a multi-faceted approach including resident teaching and faculty development might help improve interpersonal continuity which are core to both family medicine curricula and current models of health care delivery.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".