Professional, Practical and Political Opportunities: Optimizing the Role of Ontario Physician Assistants in Family Medicine : Optimizing the Role of Ontario PAs in Family Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify that facilitators and barriers that influence Physician Assistant (PA) role optimization and success in family practice settings.Setting: Rural and urban family practice settings in Ontario that had employed a PA for a minimum of two consecutive years.Participants: Six family medicine clinics in Ontario represented by seven family medicine Physician Assistants, eight Family Physicians (seven supervising physicians, one physician/administrator), and one clinic manager.Method: To identify the factors that influence role success and barriers which prevent PA role optimization, we conducted an exploratory single case study with embedded subunits of analysis.Data consisted of semistructured interviews with 15 participants and analysis of documents (medical directives, job announcements, and communications).Main findings: Barriers and facilitators to PA integration and role success can be categorized into professional, practice based, and political factors.Professional factors that facilitate role optimization include the professional relationship between the PA and physician, level of comfort with autonomy, trust, rapport and PA competencies.Practice factors that optimize the role include appropriate administrative support /organization, investment in PA training and patient satisfaction.Barriers include employer knowledge of medical-legal risks,
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".