比较初级医疗服务提供者实施先进就医策略的情况。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Interprofessional Care Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-10 DOI:10.1080/13561820.2023.2173157
Mylaine Breton, Nadia Deville-Stoetzel, Isabelle Gaboury, Arnaud Duhoux, Lara Maillet, Sabina Abou Malham, France Légaré, Isabelle Vedel, Catherine Hudon, Nassera Touati, Jalila Jbilou, Christine Loignon, Marie-Thérèse Lussier
{"title":"比较初级医疗服务提供者实施先进就医策略的情况。","authors":"Mylaine Breton, Nadia Deville-Stoetzel, Isabelle Gaboury, Arnaud Duhoux, Lara Maillet, Sabina Abou Malham, France Légaré, Isabelle Vedel, Catherine Hudon, Nassera Touati, Jalila Jbilou, Christine Loignon, Marie-Thérèse Lussier","doi":"10.1080/13561820.2023.2173157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The advanced access (AA) model is among the most recommended innovations for improving timely access in primary health care (PHC). Originally developed for physicians, it is now relevant to evaluate the model's implementation in more interprofessional practices. We compared AA implementation among family physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses. A cross-sectional online open survey was completed by 514 PHC providers working in 35 university-affiliated clinics. Family physicians delegated tasks to other professionals in the team more often than nurse practitioners (<i>p</i> = .001) and nurses (<i>p</i> < .001). They also left a smaller proportion of their schedules open for urgent patient needs than did nurse practitioners (<i>p</i> = .015) and nurses (<i>p</i> < .001). Nurses created more alternatives to in-person visits than family physicians (<i>p</i> < .001) and coordinated health and social services more than family physicians (<i>p</i> = .003). During periods of absence, physicians referred patients to walk-in services for urgent needs significantly more often than nurses (<i>p</i> = .003), whereas nurses planned replacements between colleagues more often than physicians (<i>p</i> <.001). The variations among provider categories indicate that a one-size-fits-all implementation of AA principles is not recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":50174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interprofessional Care","volume":" ","pages":"209-219"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the implementation of advanced access strategies among primary health care providers.\",\"authors\":\"Mylaine Breton, Nadia Deville-Stoetzel, Isabelle Gaboury, Arnaud Duhoux, Lara Maillet, Sabina Abou Malham, France Légaré, Isabelle Vedel, Catherine Hudon, Nassera Touati, Jalila Jbilou, Christine Loignon, Marie-Thérèse Lussier\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13561820.2023.2173157\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The advanced access (AA) model is among the most recommended innovations for improving timely access in primary health care (PHC). Originally developed for physicians, it is now relevant to evaluate the model's implementation in more interprofessional practices. We compared AA implementation among family physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses. A cross-sectional online open survey was completed by 514 PHC providers working in 35 university-affiliated clinics. Family physicians delegated tasks to other professionals in the team more often than nurse practitioners (<i>p</i> = .001) and nurses (<i>p</i> < .001). They also left a smaller proportion of their schedules open for urgent patient needs than did nurse practitioners (<i>p</i> = .015) and nurses (<i>p</i> < .001). Nurses created more alternatives to in-person visits than family physicians (<i>p</i> < .001) and coordinated health and social services more than family physicians (<i>p</i> = .003). During periods of absence, physicians referred patients to walk-in services for urgent needs significantly more often than nurses (<i>p</i> = .003), whereas nurses planned replacements between colleagues more often than physicians (<i>p</i> <.001). The variations among provider categories indicate that a one-size-fits-all implementation of AA principles is not recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interprofessional Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"209-219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interprofessional Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2023.2173157\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interprofessional Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2023.2173157","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先进就医模式(AA)是改善初级医疗保健(PHC)及时就医的最值得推荐的创新模式之一。该模式最初是为医生开发的,现在则需要评估该模式在更多跨专业实践中的实施情况。我们比较了家庭医生、执业护士和护士的 AA 实施情况。在 35 所大学附属诊所工作的 514 名初级保健服务提供者完成了一项横向在线公开调查。与执业护士(p = .001)、护士(p p = .015)和护士(p p = .003)相比,家庭医生更经常将任务委托给团队中的其他专业人员。在缺勤期间,医生将病人转介到急诊服务的频率明显高于护士(p = .003),而护士计划在同事之间替换病人的频率高于医生(p = .001)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the implementation of advanced access strategies among primary health care providers.

The advanced access (AA) model is among the most recommended innovations for improving timely access in primary health care (PHC). Originally developed for physicians, it is now relevant to evaluate the model's implementation in more interprofessional practices. We compared AA implementation among family physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses. A cross-sectional online open survey was completed by 514 PHC providers working in 35 university-affiliated clinics. Family physicians delegated tasks to other professionals in the team more often than nurse practitioners (p = .001) and nurses (p < .001). They also left a smaller proportion of their schedules open for urgent patient needs than did nurse practitioners (p = .015) and nurses (p < .001). Nurses created more alternatives to in-person visits than family physicians (p < .001) and coordinated health and social services more than family physicians (p = .003). During periods of absence, physicians referred patients to walk-in services for urgent needs significantly more often than nurses (p = .003), whereas nurses planned replacements between colleagues more often than physicians (p <.001). The variations among provider categories indicate that a one-size-fits-all implementation of AA principles is not recommended.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Journal of Interprofessional Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
14.80%
发文量
124
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interprofessional Care disseminates research and new developments in the field of interprofessional education and practice. We welcome contributions containing an explicit interprofessional focus, and involving a range of settings, professions, and fields. Areas of practice covered include primary, community and hospital care, health education and public health, and beyond health and social care into fields such as criminal justice and primary/elementary education. Papers introducing additional interprofessional views, for example, from a community development or environmental design perspective, are welcome. The Journal is disseminated internationally and encourages submissions from around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信