General practitioners: Between integration and co-location. The case of primary care centers in Tuscany, Italy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare systems have followed several strategies aimed at integrating primary care services and professionals. Medical homes in the USA and Canada, and primary care centres across Europe have collocated general practitioners and other health and social professionals in the same building in order to boost coordination among services and the continuity of care for patients. However, in the literature, the impact of co-location on primary care has led to controversial results. This article analyses the possible benefits of the co-location of services in primary care focusing on the Italian model of primary care centres (Case della Salute) in terms of general practitioners' perception. We used the results of a web survey of general practitioners in Tuscany to compare the experiences and satisfaction of those general practitioners involved and not involved in a primary care centre, performed a MONAVA and ANOVA analysis. Our case study highlights the positive impact of co-location on the integration of professionals, especially with nurses and social workers, and on organizational integration, in terms of frequency of meeting to discuss about quality of care. Conversely, no significant differences were found in terms of either clinical or system integration. Furthermore, the collaboration with specialists is still weak. Considering the general practitioners' perspective in terms of experience and satisfaction towards primary care, co-location strategies is a necessary step in order to facilitate the collaboration among professionals and to prevent unintended consequences in terms of an even possible isolation of primary care as an involuntary 'disintegration of the integration'.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it