Integrating an Urgent Care Clinic Into an Academic Family Medicine Practice
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
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There has been a growth in the demand for convenient, walk-in access in health care across the United States, resulting in primary care practices seeing a shift in services to urgent care centers (UCCs). In order to incorporate the flexibility of a UCC and improve primary care access and preventive care for our regular patients, the University of North Carolina (UNC) Family Medicine Center (FMC) established a UCC within the practice. This report describes that process and the impact of the new UCC on our academic practice. METHODS: With the support of the UNC health care system, our primary objectives were to provide enhanced access for patients with acute problems, decrease emergency department (ED) utilization, and increase enrollment of new patients for ongoing primary care. As part of our intervention, we asked providers to respond to a series of questions at the end of each visit. These questions, along with data regarding number of visits and revenue, were tracked longitudinally. RESULTS: By the end of our first year, we were treating about 900 patients per month, of which approximately one-third would have otherwise visited the ED. We averaged 115 new patients establishing care per quarter. In addition to the success of this new service line, our primary practice maintained provider continuity and grew at a higher rate than prior to opening the UCC. CONCLUSIONS: The opening of urgent care at the UNC FMC provided improved access for our patients, increased the number of patients empaneled in our primary care practice, and provided a new revenue stream.
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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