Response to "The Primary Care Workforce Is Transitioning Away From a Physician-Dominated Model".

This study provides a snapshot of the current state of primary care workforce (PCW) serving China's grassroots communities and examines the factors associated with their job satisfaction. Data for the study were from the 2011 China Primary Care Workforce Survey, a nationally representative survey that provides the most current assessment of community-based PCW. Outcome measures included 12 items on job satisfaction. Covariates included intrinsic and extrinsic factors associated with job satisfaction. In addition, PCW type (i.e., physicians, nurses, public health, and village doctors) and practice setting (i.e., rural versus urban) were included to identify potential differences due to the type of PCW and practice settings. The overall satisfaction level is rather low with only 47.6% of the Chinese PCW reporting either satisfied or very satisfied with their job. PCW are least satisfied with their income level (only 8.6% are either satisfied or very satisfied), benefits (12.8%), and professional development (19.5%). They (particularly village doctors) are also dissatisfied with their workload (37.2%). Lower income and higher workload are the two major contributing factors toward job dissatisfaction. To improve the general satisfaction level, policymakers must provide better pay and benefits and more opportunities for career development, particularly for village doctors.

To examine the association between 10-year temporal changes in the primary care workforce and Medicare beneficiaries' outcomes. 2001 and 2011 American Medical Association Masterfiles and fee-for-service Medicare claims. We calculated two primary care workforce measures within Primary Care Service Areas: the number of primary care physicians per 10,000 population (per capita) and the number of Medicare primary care full-time equivalents (FTEs) per 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The three outcomes were mortality, ambulatory care-sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations, and emergency department (ED) visits. We measured the marginal association between changes in primary care workforce and patient outcomes using Poisson regression models. An increase of one primary care physician per 10,000 population was associated with 15.1 fewer deaths per 100,000 and 39.7 fewer ACSC hospitalizations per 100,000 (both p<.05). An increase of one Medicare primary care FTE per 10,000 beneficiaries was associated with 82.8 fewer deaths per 100,000, 160.8 fewer ACSC hospitalizations per 100,000, and 712.3 fewer ED visits per 100,000 (all p<.05). Medicare beneficiaries' outcomes improved as the number of primary care physicians and their clinical effort increased.

Primary care is a growing area for allied health professionals, including occupational therapists, offering opportunities for early intervention and prevention alongside collaborative, holistic approaches to patient care. The aim of the rapid review was to explore the evidence regarding positioning occupational therapists in this setting. Bibliographic databases (CINAHL, Medline, APA PsycInfo), Google Scholar and websites of relevant organisations were searched. Search parameters were English language and date (2013-2024). The initial inclusion criteria focussed on United Kingdom (UK) research but due to a lack of high-quality evidence, randomised controlled trials from countries outside of the UK were included. Sixteen papers were included in the review. Four papers reported UK research. Interventions included falls prevention, frailty services, lifestyle management programmes, medication adherence, mindfulness and vocational clinics. The evidence supported the positioning of the occupational therapy workforce in primary care particularly in the areas of falls interventions, frailty services and self-management. Where occupational therapists were co-located with primary care professionals, this fostered communication, information sharing and a better understanding of occupational therapy.

Hospitalists and primary care.

IntroductionMany medical schools overestimate the percentage of their graduates who enter the primary care workforce based on the “first-certificate” residency their graduates enter. To rectify this problem, Deutchman and colleagues proposed a new method of estimation. The objective of this study was to compare results from the traditional residency match and Deutchman methods to the actual percentage of University of Kansas School of Medicine (KUSM) graduates who practice primary care after completing medical school and all residency and subspeciality fellowship training.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted using a convenience sample of KUSM graduates from 2003–2014. Percentages of graduates classified as primary care by the traditional Residency Match Primary Care Method (RMPCM) and the percentages of graduates identified as primary care by Deutchman’s Intent to Practice Primary Care Method (IPPCM) were compared with the actual percentage of graduates who eventually entered the primary care workforce.ResultsOf the 1,944 KUSM graduates identified during the study period, the RMPCM predicted a 48.1% primary care output rate. The Deutchman’s IPPCM predicted a 22.8% primary care output rate. The actual known percentage of graduates practicing primary care was 34.2%.ConclusionsNeither the RMPCM nor the Deutchman’s IPPCM performed well in predicting the percentage or number of KUSM graduates who eventually practiced primary care. Due to predictions for the shortage of primary care physicians, there is a need to identify a method that more accurately predicts the medical schools’ contribution to the primary care workforce.

BackgroundSince 2002, paramedics have been working in primary care within the United Kingdom (UK), a transition also mirrored within Australia, Canada and the USA. Recent recommendations to improve UK NHS workforce capacities have led to a major push to increase the numbers of paramedics recruited into primary care. However, gaps exist in the evidence base regarding how and why these changes would work, for whom, in what context and to what extent. To understand the ways in which paramedics impact (or not) the primary care workforce, we conducted a realist review.MethodsA realist approach aims to provide causal explanations through the generation and articulation of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Our search of electronic databases was supplemented with Google and citation checking to locate grey literature including news items and workforce reports. Included documents were from the UK, Australia, Canada and the Americas—countries within which the paramedic role within primary care is well established.ResultsOur searches resulted in 205 included documents, from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) within a final programme theory. Our results outline that paramedics are more likely to be effective in contributing to primary care workforces when they are supported to expand their existing role through formal education and clinical supervision. We also found that unless paramedics were fully integrated into primary care services, they did not experience the socialisation needed to build trusting relationships with patients or physicians. Indeed, for patients to accept paramedics in primary care, their role and its implications for their care should be outlined by a trusted source.ConclusionsOur realist review highlights the complexity surrounding the introduction of paramedics into primary care roles. As well as offering an insight into understanding the paramedic professional identity, we also discuss the range of expectations this professional group will face in the transition to primary care. These expectations come from patients, general practitioners (family physicians) and paramedics themselves. This review is the first to offer insight into understanding the impact paramedics may have on the international primary care workforce and shaping how they might be optimally deployed.

Background: In order to evaluate the capacity of primary care to provide comprehensive, coordinated, continuous care, a description of the primary care workforce is necessary. There have been prior efforts to describe the distribution of primary care, however, an accurate and timely description of which clinicians are in what location has been lacking. Further, the scope of care provided has not been fully explored. This research aimed to describe the primary care workforce distribution and specialty across the state of Virginia. Methods: The Virginia All-Payers Claims Database (APCD) and National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) we queried. We identified all physicians (MD and DO) through NPPES and then cross referenced these clinicians with the APCD to identify those with an active claim in 2018. The NPPES was used to identify the physician specialty. Results: In 2018, there were 20,779 active physicians, of which 3,054 were family medicine, 1,794 were pediatricians, 1, 079 were OB/Gyns, and 5,247 were internal medicine or general medicine clinicians. The number of clinicians remained relatively stable between 2015-2018. Physicians were also categorized by ambulatory, inpatient, and mixed care. Discussion: This is the first evaluation that identifies clinician characteristics by using both active practice and NPPES taxonomy of type of clinicians. This will provide insight into the way care is provided across the state and establishes a foundation for evaluation of continuous care, comprehensive care and coordinated care in the future. As claims can be used to identify individuals over the course of time, it will be possible to identify scope, continuity and additional characteristics of clinicians. Additionally, we hope to identify advanced practice providers and their scope of care as well as clinicians migration and evolution during their career.

BackgroundHaving a sufficient and well-functioning health workforce is crucial for reducing the burden of disease and premature death. Health workforce development, focusing on availability, recruitment, retention, and education, is inseparable from acceptability, motivation, burnout, role and responsibility, and performance. Each aspect of workforce development may face several challenges, requiring specific strategies. However, there was little evidence on barriers and strategies towards comprehensive health workforce development. Therefore, this review explored barriers and strategies for health workforce development at the primary health care level around the world.MethodsA scoping review of reviews was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews. The article search was performed in Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE. We used EndNote x9 for managing the collected articles, screening processes, and citation purpose. The scoping review included any kind of review articles on the application of health workforce development concepts, such as availability, recruitment, retention, role and responsibility, education and training, motivation, and burnout, with primary health care and published in English anywhere in the world. Based on the concepts above, barriers and strategies for health workforce development were identified. The findings were synthesized qualitatively based on the building blocks of the health system framework. The analysis involved specific activities such as familiarization, construction of the thematic framework, indexing, charting, and interpretation. The results were presented in texts, tables, and figures.ResultsThe search strategies yielded 7,276 papers were found. Of which, 69 were included in the scoping review. The most frequently cited barriers were financial challenges and issues related to health care delivery, such as workloads. Barriers affecting healthcare providers directly, including lack of training and ineffective teamwork, were also prominent. Other health system and governance barriers include lack of support, unclear responsibility, and inequity. Another notable barrier was the shortage of health care technology, which pertains to both health care supplies and information technology. The most common cited effective strategies were ongoing support and supervision, engaging with communities, establishing appropriate primary care settings, financial incentives, fostering teamwork, and promoting autonomous health care practice.ConclusionsEffective leadership/governance, a robust health financing system, integration of health information and technology, such as mobile health and ensuring a consistent supply of adequate resources are also vital components of primary health care workforce development. The findings highlight the importance of continuous professional development, which includes training new cadres, implementing effective recruitment and retention mechanisms, optimising the skill mix, and promoting workplace wellness. These elements are essential in fostering a well-trained and resilient primary health care workforce.

There is a paucity of research on the quality of evidence relating to primary care workforce models. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the quality of evidence on diabetes primary care workforce models in Australia. The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia's (National Health and Medical Reseach Council; 2000, 2001) frameworks for evaluating scientific evidence and economic evaluations were used to assess the quality of studies involving primary care workforce models for diabetes care involving Australian adults. A search of medical databases (MEDLINE, AMED, RURAL, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet and The Cochrane Institute), journals for diabetes care (Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Diabetes Care, Diabetic Medicine, Population Health Management, Rural and Remote Health, Australian Journal of Primary Health, PLoS Medicine, Medical Journal of Australia, BMC Health Services Research, BMC Public Health, BMC Family Practice) and Commonwealth and state government health websites was undertaken to acquire Australian studies of diabetes workforce models published 2005-13. Various diabetes workforce models were examined, including 'one-stop shops', pharmacy care, Aboriginal services and telephone-delivered interventions. The quality of evidence was evaluated against several criteria, including relevance and replication, strength of evidence, effect size, transferability and representativeness, and value for money. Of the 14 studies found, four were randomised controlled trials and one was a systematic review (i.e. Level II and I (best) evidence). Only three provided a replicable protocol or detailed intervention delivery. Eleven lacked a theoretical framework. Twelve reported significant improvements in clinical (patient) outcomes, commonly HbA1c, cholesterol and blood pressure; only four reported changes in short- and long-term outcomes (e.g. quality of life). Most studies used a small or targeted population. Only two studies assessed both benefits and costs of their intervention compared with usual care and cost effectiveness. More rigorous studies of diabetes workforce models are needed to determine whether these interventions improve patient outcomes and, if they do, represent value for money. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?: Although health systems with strong primary care orientations have been associated with enhanced access, equity and population health, the primary care workforce is facing several challenges. These include a mal-distribution of resources (supply side) and health outcomes (demand side), inconsistent support for teamwork care models, and a lack of enhanced clinical inter-professional education and/or training opportunities. These challenges are exacerbated by an ageing health workforce and general population, as well as a population that has increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi-morbidity. Although several policy directions have been advocated to address these challenges, there is a lack of high-quality evidence about which primary care workforce models are best (and which models represent better value for money than current practice) and what the health effects are for patients. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD?: This study demonstrated several strengths and weaknesses of Australian diabetes models of care studies. In particular, only five of the 14 studies assessed were designed in a way that enabled them to achieve a Level II or I rating (and hence the 'best' level of evidence), based on the NHMRC's (2000, 2001) frameworks for assessing scientific evidence. The majority of studies risked the introduction of bias and thus may have incorrect conclusions. Only a few studies described clearly what the intervention and the comparator were and thus could be easily replicated. Only two studies included cost-effectiveness studies of their interventions compared with usual care. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS?: Although there has been an increase in the number of primary care workforce models implemented in Australia, there is a need for more rigorous research to assess whether these interventions are effective in producing improved health outcomes and represent better value for money than current practice. Researchers and policymakers need to make decisions based on high-quality evidence; it is not obvious what effect the evidence is having on primary care workforce reform.

In the epistemic field, several studies demonstrate the importance of pharmaceutical services in health care networks. Nonetheless, literature still addresses the strengths and barriers present in the provision of these services in an incipient way. Thus, this study aimed to understand these contexts in the development of clinical services for primary health care in the Federal District, Brazil. A qualitative study adopted the technique of open-script interview, structured based on the logic of the SWOT matrix. Pharmacists reported weaknesses such as precariousness and scarcity of physical infrastructure, material, and human resources. As threats, they discussed the lack of social recognition, discontinuities of government actions, and lack of preparation of the pharmacist for the provision of clinical services. Regarding themes pertaining to the service’s strengths and opportunities, the advances in propositions and executions of public policies, actions, and governmental programs that have expanded the pharmaceutical workforce in primary care and that are impelling the accomplishment of clinical services were listed. This study contributes to understanding the scenario of the development of clinical pharmaceutical services, and consequently provides subsidies for the actions of planning, evaluation and qualification of health services.

To explore higher education institution (HEI) perspectives on the development and implementation of trainee nursing associates (NAs) in the primary care workforce in England. Current shortages of primary health care staff have led to innovative skill mix approaches in attempts to maintain safe and effective care. In England, a new level of nursing practice, NAs, was introduced and joined the workforce in 2019. This role was envisaged as a way of bridging the skills gap between health care assistants and registered nurses and as an alternative route into registered nursing. However, there is limited evidence on programme development and implementation of trainee NAs within primary care settings and HEI perspectives on this. This paper draws from a larger qualitative study of HEI perspectives on the trainee NA programme. Twenty-seven staff involved in training NAs, from five HEIs across England, were interviewed from June to September 2021. The interview schedule specifically included questions relating to primary care. Data relating to primary care were extracted and analysed using a combined framework and thematic analysis approach. Three themes were developed: 'Understanding the trainee role and requirements', 'Trainee support in primary care' and 'Skills and scope of practice'. It is apparent that a more limited understanding of the NA programme requirements can lead to difficulties in accessing the right support for trainees in primary care. This can create challenges for trainees in gaining the required competencies and uncertainty in understanding what constitutes a safe scope of practice within the role for both employers and trainees. It might be anticipated that as this new programme becomes more embedded in primary care, a greater understanding will develop, support will improve and the nature and scope of this new level of practice will become clearer.

Pediatric nurse practitioners (PNPs) are a significant workforce in primary care and are uniquely positioned to improve oral health in children through ongoing surveillance in the well-child visit. The purpose of this study was to evaluate PNP student satisfaction and knowledge gained with the integration of the Strategic Partnership for Interprofessional Collaborative Education in Pediatric Dentistry (SPICE-PD) oral health education program into the first-year primary care curriculum. A descriptive, comparative design examined dental test scores across the pre-SPICE-PD (2013-2014; n = 26) and post-SPICE-PD (2015-2020; n = 55) cohorts. An electronic survey was completed (n = 47; 67%), and focus group (n = 12) audio-recordings were analyzed using Atlas.ti 8.0. Chi-square test and independent samples t-test were used to assess differences between groups. The SPICE-PD students reported improved knowledge and skill in clinical practice. Focus group themes were oral health education was beneficial, impact of coronavirus disease 2019, and suggestions for improvement. Mean dental test scores improved pre- and post-SPICE-PD (83 vs. 93; p < .001). The SPICE-PD oral health education improved knowledge and was highly satisfying for students. Pediatric nurse practitioners are ideally positioned to integrate oral health into primary care services, thereby improving access to care and ultimately reducing or mitigating early childhood caries. Evaluation of PNP postgraduation practices in the primary care setting is needed to assess whether improved knowledge results in practice change.

The impact of the COVID pandemic on primary care diabetes services in the UK: A cross-sectional national survey of views of health professionals delivering diabetes care

IntroductionPrimary care nurses (PCNs) are the second largest workforce in primary care and play a critical role in facilitating access to coordinated care and reducing health disparities. There is renewed interest in team-based primary care as a solution for health workforce challenges. Some team models enable PCNs (ie, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, licensed/registered practical nurses) to leverage one another’s expertise to work to optimal scope; the extent to which this happens depends on multiple context-dependent factors. We will conduct an umbrella review to synthesise and compare international knowledge syntheses focused on scope of practice enactment (ie., roles and activities) of PCNs in primary care.Methods and analysisWe will conduct the umbrella review according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines, and using the Nursing Care Organization Framework as guidance. We will search a wide range of scientific electronic databases and grey literature sources, and consider articles published in English and French by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and designated key partner countries for inclusion, with no publication date limits. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles, and any disagreements will be resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. We will use the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews to assess the quality and risk of bias in the included systematic and scoping reviews.Ethics and disseminationResults will be presented in a PRISMA Scoping Review flow diagram. We will synthesise data from included studies in a detailed literature review table and develop visual aids to communicate the shared and unique roles and activities of PCN scope of practice. We will disseminate the results of the review through peer-reviewed publications and conferences related to this field. Ethics approval is not required.

A suitable definition of primary care to capture the variety of prevailing international organisation and service-delivery models is lacking. Evaluation of strength of primary care in Europe. International comparative cross-sectional study performed in 2009-2010, involving 27 EU member states, plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey. Outcome measures covered three dimensions of primary care structure: primary care governance, economic conditions of primary care, and primary care workforce development; and four dimensions of primary care service-delivery process: accessibility, comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordination of primary care. The primary care dimensions were operationalised by a total of 77 indicators for which data were collected in 31 countries. Data sources included national and international literature, governmental publications, statistical databases, and experts' consultations. Countries with relatively strong primary care are Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK. Countries either have many primary care policies and regulations in place, combined with good financial coverage and resources, and adequate primary care workforce conditions, or have consistently only few of these primary care structures in place. There is no correlation between the access, continuity, coordination, and comprehensiveness of primary care of countries. Variation is shown in the strength of primary care across Europe, indicating a discrepancy in the responsibility given to primary care in national and international policy initiatives and the needed investments in primary care to solve, for example, future shortages of workforce. Countries are consistent in their primary care focus on all important structure dimensions. Countries need to improve their primary care information infrastructure to facilitate primary care performance management.