Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleAnnals Journal Club

Improving Team Dynamics Can Improve Patient Care

Christal M. Clemens and Michael E. Johansen
The Annals of Family Medicine September 2021, 19 (5) iii; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2735
Christal M. Clemens
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael E. Johansen
Roles: Associate Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • RE: Journal Club discussion: Primary Care 2.0: A prospective evaluation of a novel model of advanced team care with expanded medical assistant support
    Kelli Utz, Bailey Clancy, Jeana Kim, Maya McLain, Kovas Polikaitis and Elizabeth Saulcy
    Published on: 09 December 2021
  • Published on: (9 December 2021)
    Page navigation anchor for RE: Journal Club discussion: Primary Care 2.0: A prospective evaluation of a novel model of advanced team care with expanded medical assistant support
    RE: Journal Club discussion: Primary Care 2.0: A prospective evaluation of a novel model of advanced team care with expanded medical assistant support
    • Kelli Utz, Medical Student, University of Illinois College of Medicine Rockford
    • Other Contributors:
      • Bailey Clancy, Medical Student
      • Jeana Kim, Medical Student
      • Maya McLain, Medical Student
      • Kovas Polikaitis, Medical Student
      • Elizabeth Saulcy, Medical Student

    The overall purpose of the research was to answer the question of whether a team-based approach in the healthcare setting was best for quality, cost, patient satisfaction and provider burnout. The authors hypothesized that increasing the ratio of medical assistants (MA), to advance care providers in a ratio of 2:1, integrating advanced practice clinicians, expanding MA roles and including an extended interprofessional team would help achieve this goal in a family medicine or internal medicine practice.

    This was a prospective, quasi-experimental, longitudinal study that compared an implementation group to a control group using a difference-in-difference technique. The study was conducted in five different locations, all in the same healthcare system and primarily served a similar patient population within a primary care practice setting. Data was collected using surveys with both staff and advance care providers. We found that this was an important design of the study because it allowed for similar healthcare protocols and reward systems for staff, as well as similar socioeconomical status and insurance plans of the patients their office was serving.

    The primary outcomes of the study included team development and wellness scores. Team development was assessed using the team development survey that measured cohesion, communication, team roles and end goals. The secondary outcomes that the study evaluated included quality, cost and patient satisfaction. Qualit...

    Show More

    The overall purpose of the research was to answer the question of whether a team-based approach in the healthcare setting was best for quality, cost, patient satisfaction and provider burnout. The authors hypothesized that increasing the ratio of medical assistants (MA), to advance care providers in a ratio of 2:1, integrating advanced practice clinicians, expanding MA roles and including an extended interprofessional team would help achieve this goal in a family medicine or internal medicine practice.

    This was a prospective, quasi-experimental, longitudinal study that compared an implementation group to a control group using a difference-in-difference technique. The study was conducted in five different locations, all in the same healthcare system and primarily served a similar patient population within a primary care practice setting. Data was collected using surveys with both staff and advance care providers. We found that this was an important design of the study because it allowed for similar healthcare protocols and reward systems for staff, as well as similar socioeconomical status and insurance plans of the patients their office was serving.

    The primary outcomes of the study included team development and wellness scores. Team development was assessed using the team development survey that measured cohesion, communication, team roles and end goals. The secondary outcomes that the study evaluated included quality, cost and patient satisfaction. Quality was assessed using data from hemoglobin A1C, diabetic nephropathy and ACE-inhibitor/ARB medications. Cost was assessed using total cost of labor per each individual patient visit. Lastly, patient satisfaction was assessed using Press-Ganey Surveys which is a well-known analytic company that many healthcare offices use in the United States.

    The data analysis revealed several different points. Overall the survey response was higher in the implementation group when compared to the control. When looking at the primary outcomes, the team development data showed that scores increased over time, all of which were statistically significant. Whereas the wellness scores data did not necessarily prove to be statistically significant we discussed that it still could have been clinically significant with regards to provider burnout. Throughout the study, the secondary outcomes (quality, cost and patient satisfaction) remained steady and stable with no real decrease in the implementation group.

    Our discussion focused on defining roles within the primary care team. We were interested in learning more about the role of the medical assistant in the implementation group as well as how the team functioned prior to adding an additional team member. We discussed the differences in MA’s that we have observed in our own clinic experience. The expectations of some MA’s may be to get the vital signs and reconcile medication lists and others may include taking an entire focused history of present illness for the advanced provider. We also discussed the differences that arise between teams that have more experience working together (5+ years) in comparison to teams that are relatively new to each other (<1-2 years) and how this might change the overall outcome of the study. Keeping in mind that the primary questions our discussion came back to was “How was the role of each team member defined?”.

    Some changes that our group proposed included comparing the same type of practices, defining the role of the MA and exploring the return on investment from implementing a team-based care model. Although the study did compare similar medical office settings, we felt that it would be important to only compare FM to FM and IM to IM offices. Yes, these offices see similar disease processes, but we felt that this would be a relatively easy factor to control that would help improve the validity of the study. Again, our group felt very strongly about clearly defining the role of the added medical assistant. This would be beneficial for other medical offices to be able to replicate this model and assess outcomes. Finally, the study does mention that the labor cost was lower with the implementation group, however they used advanced providers such as nurse practitioners and physicians associate rather than comparing MD/DO’s. Our group would have liked to see the comparison of a MD/DO with less MA’s or if advanced practitioners with more MA’s was superior. This could have been done in the control groups, but it was not specified.

    There are some limitations that our group discussed including the survey response, amount of experience, type of clinic, type of healthcare system and data outcomes. In the study, the implementation group had a higher survey response, which could have made the data more favorable for the primary care 2.0 model. We felt that the study did not control for the amount of experience that each MA had in practice and felt that this was a limitation of the study. Our group also felt that the data from the study would only apply to a family/internal medicine practice because specialty clinics may have unique characteristics that will result in different outcomes. Overall the study was not generalizable because it was done in the same health care system. It did help to control for other confounders but made it less likely to apply this information to other healthcare systems that likely work in a completely different way. Lastly, the data that was concluded was not statistically significant, however it could still be considered clinically significant.

    In conclusion, this study could have shown stronger evidence of the primary care 2.0 model being statistically significant if the data would have continued for a longer period of time without the disruption in MA staffing which caused the implementation clinic to revert back to the original set up. Our group shows particular interest in learning about the team members roles and would have liked to see them directly outlined. This could make the study reproduceable and allow similar effects across other health care offices that want to carry out this approach.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 19 (5)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 19 (5)
Vol. 19, Issue 5
1 Sep 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • The Issue in Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Improving Team Dynamics Can Improve Patient Care
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
10 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Improving Team Dynamics Can Improve Patient Care
Christal M. Clemens, Michael E. Johansen
The Annals of Family Medicine Sep 2021, 19 (5) iii; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2735

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Improving Team Dynamics Can Improve Patient Care
Christal M. Clemens, Michael E. Johansen
The Annals of Family Medicine Sep 2021, 19 (5) iii; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2735
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • HOW IT WORKS
    • CURRENT SELECTION
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Self-Rooming Patients in Health System?
  • Continuity of Care as a Quality Metric
  • Evaluation of Community Health Worker Intervention in San Antonio
Show more Annals Journal Club

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine