Abstract
Purpose
Implementing team‐based care into existing primary care is challenging; understanding facilitators and barriers to implementation is critical. We assessed adoption and acceptability of new roles in the first 6 months of launching a team‐based care model focused on preventive care, population health, and psychosocial support.
Methods
We conducted qualitative rapid ethnography at a community‐based test clinic, including 74 hours of observations and 28 semi‐structured interviews. We identified implementation themes related to team‐based care and specifically the integration of three roles purposively designed to enhance coordination for better patient outcomes, including preventive screening and mental health: (1) medical assistants as care coordinators; (2) extended care team specialists, including clinical pharmacist and behavioral health professional; and (3) advanced practice providers (APPs)—ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
Results
All stakeholders (ie, patients, providers, and staff) reported positive perceptions of care coordinators and extended care specialists; these roles were well defined and quickly implemented. Care coordinators effectively managed care between visits and established strong patient relationships. Specialist colocation facilitated patient access and well‐supported diabetes services and mental health care. We also observed unanticipated value: Care coordinators relayed encounter‐relevant chart information to providers while scribing; extended care specialists supported informal continuing medical education. In contrast, we observed uncertain definition and expectations of the APP role across stakeholders; accordingly, adoption and acceptability of the role varied.
Conclusions
Practice redesign can redistribute responsibility and patient connection throughout a team but should emphasize well‐defined roles. Ethnography, conducted early in implementation with multistakeholder perspectives, can provide rapid and actionable insights about where roles may need refinement or redefinition to support ultimate physical and mental health outcomes for patients.
Keywords: practice redesign, role definition, team‐based care
1. INTRODUCTION
Primary care redesign efforts in the United States (US) began in earnest in 20021 and have ranged from smaller‐scale home visit models and concierge‐inspired “direct primary care”2 to the U.S. Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) movement, which emphasizes a personal physician, care coordination, quality, safety, and access.3, 4 Building on PCMH principles, a new primary care model—Primary Care 2.0—is a team‐based model supporting population health, preventive care (screening), and mental health for all patients. From a process standpoint, Primary Care 2.0 additionally emphasizes (1) distributed and team‐based care through top‐of‐license/scope of work practice for all, including staff and providers, and (2) primary care colocation/collaboration with select secondary (specialty) care providers who may comanage complex patients.
There are many challenges in implementing team‐based care models into clinics3; understanding facilitators and barriers to successful implementation is critical for long‐term sustainability and spread, and these factors are not well understood. To date, research on PCMH practice transformation has focused on traditional clinical outcomes such as the Triple Aim,5 but there is little or no explanation when a PCMH implementation fails to produce anticipated results.6 In this vacuum, scholars have called for hybrid implementation studies that incorporate implementation science outcomes such as feasibility, adoption, and sustainability into traditional evaluation outcomes. Implementation science studies are needed to bridge the gap between initial implementation and long‐term sustainability, including definition of best practices for PCMH implementation and the ultimate spread of new care models into clinical practice.7
One implementation study found that changes in individual and team roles, and the accompanying changes in workflow, were among the biggest PCMH implementation challenges.3 Based on this insight, we hypothesized that the degree of clarity in new/modified roles would impact adoption and acceptability in successful implementation of new team‐based care models. We expected that role definition would be demonstrated as a key part of the expectation‐setting needed to quickly move a practice from traditional primary care through transformation to team‐based medicine.3 With this in mind, we examined the implementation of a modified PCMH design that included both novel and less novel roles. Specifically, we assessed the adoption and acceptability of newly introduced care team roles in the first 6 months of a team‐based care model implementation, additionally tracking any role adaptations as they emerged.
2. METHODS
2.1. The Primary Care 2.0 model
Stanford's primary care redesign, Primary Care 2.0, represents 1.5 years of intentional multistakeholder design, detailed in Brown‐Johnson et al.8 Final model design components included a mixture of role‐based elements (1‐3) and systems elements (4‐7) intended to support population health, preventive care, and mental health goals for patients:
Pairings of physicians (MDs) and nurse practitioner/physician assistant “Advance Practice Providers” (APP), providing team‐based care, with support from medical assistant “care coordinators”;
“Care coordinator” role of medical assistants working in an expanded capacity including in‐exam scribing for team‐based documentation and between‐visit care coordination;
“Extended care team” dedicated onsite specialists: clinical pharmacist, nutritionist, physical therapy, behavioral health;
Protected provider time for care coordination;
Telehealth;
Health coaching; and
Learning health care system structures, (ie, continuous quality improvement, daily “huddles,” case conferences).
2.2. Context
The Primary Care 2.0 model was piloted in a community‐based Stanford‐affiliated primary care/family medicine clinic beginning in June 2016.
2.3. Data collection
We used qualitative rapid ethnography methods that have been successfully applied to health care to characterize multistakeholder perspectives, particularly physician, staff, and patient roles.9 The aim of ethnography in health care evaluation setting is “to provide rich, holistic insights into people's views and actions.”10 Rapid ethnography efficiently leverages multiple related data collection methods (eg, clinic and patient visit observations, semi‐structured interviews) while retaining a human‐centered focus.11
We structured our rapid ethnography around purposefully sampled patient visits, using observation and semi‐structured interview techniques previously tailored for exam room settings.12 The observation packet included protocols for approaching patients, semi‐structured interview questions for post‐visit debriefs, and reference material such as elements of the Primary Care 2.0 model. Observations and interviews were conducted during multiday site visits in August/September and December 2016. Visits were intentionally scheduled to align with expected phases of stable implementation (3‐month postlaunch) and early sustainability (6‐month postlaunch). This schedule allowed for exploration of consistency over time with respect to roles and implementation science outcomes, specifically adoption and acceptability.
We applied purposive sampling in selecting patient visits, ensuring diversity of gender, care complexity, provider type (MD vs APP), and visit type (new vs return) in order to get varied stakeholder perspectives. We also targeted family medicine providers to ensure representation of pediatric patients and families. Observations included as much of the patient experience as possible: from the waiting room to the exam rooms, through checkout and to the exit/parking lot. For patient visit observations, patients were approached by evaluation staff in the clinic waiting room and invited to participate in this quality improvement evaluation of Primary Care 2.0. Only one potential participant declined to participate.
Observations were intentionally unstructured. As in exam room observations of Saleem et al,12 informal patient interviews occurred when the care coordinator and provider left and focused on perceptions of care, the context of the patient's health history, and prior health care experience. After‐visit semi‐structured debriefing interviews with patients, providers, and care coordinators compared Primary Care 2.0 with each stakeholder's prior experience in traditional models of primary care. We focused on stakeholder acceptance of three new roles designed to enhance patient access, care coordination, and job satisfaction: the care coordinator role, the extended care team specialists, and the APP role.
Within 24 hours, clinic observers dictated notes which were subsequently transcribed, for a total of one research memo per patient (n = 21) and one overall research memo for each day at the clinic (n = 6). Identifying information was purged before analysis.
2.4. Data analysis
Research memos were analyzed by a PhD‐trained qualitative expert and an MPH‐trained evaluation associate. Subject matter expertise was also obtained from a family medicine physician external to the clinic, to ensure appropriate interpretation. Coders read memos and notes at least three times each, noting themes, identifying exemplar quotes/situations, and independently coding for relevance to role definition and stakeholder experience. Special attention was paid to implementation science outcomes of acceptability (eg, satisfaction with the role) and adoption (eg, role uptake and implementation).13 The evaluation team reviewed analysis and came to consensus on coding disparities with input from the subject matter expert.
This project received a nonresearch determination by the Institutional Review Board of Stanford School of Medicine since its primary goal was quality improvement.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Observation and participants
During 74 hours of clinic observation, we observed numerous aspects of the clinic, including morning team huddles; staff/physician meetings; waiting room flow and volume; patient visits (rooming, patient history, blood draws, vaccines, clothed exams, medical assistant implementation of standardized assessments for patient activation and depression); provider/staff team‐room flow and collaboration; and break‐room utilization.
Twenty‐one patients seeing seven providers (four MDs and three APPs) agreed to have their visits observed. Table 1 provides an overview of each anonymized visit including type of visit, care team, and diagnosis. Fourteen patients (67%) were female. Patient race/ethnicity was diverse: Asian/Asian‐American (n = 7); White non‐Latino (n = 6); Southeast Asian (n = 5); Latino (n = 3). New patient visits were overrepresented (n = 11). Three visits were pediatric. Presenting diagnoses ranged from acute issues (eg, sports‐related injury) to chronic conditions, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease and rheumatoid arthritis.
Table 1.
Demographics and characteristics of observed patient visits in Primary Care 2.0 ordered by visit type and morbiditya
| Patient and Visit Information | Model Components Present in the Visit | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient/encounter ID | Visit Type | Multimorbidity? (>1 Active Chronic Condition) | Presenting Diagnoses | Care Team Provider | Same Care Coordinator Throughout? | Extended Care Accessed? |
| August/September 2016 | ||||||
| 1 | New | ✓ | Headaches, GERD | APP | ||
| 2 | New | ✓ | Pulmonary fibrosis | APP | ✓ | |
| 3 | New | Irritable bowel | APP | ✓ | ||
| 4 | Follow‐up | ✓ | Rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis | MD | ✓ | ✓ |
| 5 | Follow‐up | ✓ | Leukemia, weight loss | APP | ✓ | |
| 6 | Follow‐up | ✓ | Crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes | APP | ✓ | ✓ |
| 7 | Follow‐up | ✓ | Bariatric surgery, physical | MD | ✓ | |
| 8 | Follow‐up | Well‐check | MD | ✓ | ||
| 9 | Acute | Dry tongue | MD | ✓ | ||
| 10 | Acute | Running injury | MD | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 11 | Acute | Fall injury | MD | |||
| December 2016 | ||||||
| 12 | New | ✓ | Ovarian concerns, hypertension, hypothyroid | MD | ✓ | |
| 13 | New | ✓ | Joint surgery, depression, eczema | MD | ✓ | ✓ |
| 14 | New | Hypertension, infertility | APP | ✓ | ||
| 15 | New | ✓ | Type 1 diabetes, hypertension | MD | ✓ | ✓ |
| 16 | New | Vertigo, trauma | APP | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 17 | New | Well‐check | MD | ✓ | ||
| 18 | New | Well‐check | APP | ✓ | ||
| 19 | New | Physical | APP | ✓ | ||
| 20 | Follow‐up | ✓ | Parkinson's, blood clots, back pain | MD | ✓ | |
| 21 | Acute | Viral “cold” | APP | ✓ | ||
Abbreviations: APP, Advanced Practice Provider; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease; MD, physician.
Advance Practice Providers (APPs) are providers at the nurse practitioner or physician assistant level. Patients can be assigned MDs or APPs as their primary care provider. Care coordinators are medical assistants who receive extra training and perform additional duties, such as in‐exam scribing for team‐based documentation. The Primary Care 2.0 model specifies that the same Care coordinator room the patient, scribe during the visit, and follow‐up with patient discharge.
3.2. Multistakeholder perspectives on role‐based elements
3.2.1. The care coordinator role
Patients noticed the team‐based practice model, reporting positive and cohesive care experiences, often centered around the care coordinator, a role which was reported to be highly acceptable and positively endorsed by members of all other stakeholder groups. Care coordinators created a caring and attentive environment for patients, advising new patients that they would be assisting with care and could be reached directly. For example, when asked about whether the doctor and team was more or less caring than other doctor visits, Patient 4 mentioned that the visit was more caring, especially “the new care coordination.” This same patient seemed highly comfortable with care from his care coordinator, even waiving off a question from the provider by explaining “Oh, she [the care coordinator] answered that question for me.”
Care coordinators also supported patient‐provider connection by scribing during the visit, allowing providers to devote full attention to patients. Some care coordinators recognized that their expanded responsibilities (eg, managing provider in‐baskets, preparing and pending patient orders) empowered them to directly contribute to better patient care. One care coordinator expressed delight that the role facilitated “… focus on the [patient] instead of the [work].”
In addition to the well‐defined aspects of the care coordinator role (ie, rooming, scribing, after‐visit summation, in‐basket management), some care coordinators spontaneously provided value by using in‐exam computers to look up information relevant to patient care. Care coordinators for Patients 4 and 5 inserted themselves into patient‐provider conversations with information about (a) other patient appointments, (b) information shared in the care coordinator‐patient conversation, (c) details about requests from patients (referral requests) that had not surfaced during the provider‐patient interaction, and (d) potential issues with prescriptions. While no single element of such care coordination is itself novel, introducing them directly in the midst of the visit represented a novel adaptation of this hybrid role that includes in‐exam scribing and care coordination. Care coordinators' in‐exam exchange of additional information and patient requests, while not explicitly described in the original care coordinator role description, was reported by providers as acceptable. It was perceived as specifically valuable with respect to timely information exchange and supporting efficiency by reducing the need for providers to clarify notes to care coordinators outside of the visit (Table 2).
Table 2.
Multistakeholder perspectives of Primary Care 2.0 key components: Observation and debriefing interview results from patients, providers, and medical assistant “care coordinators”
| Primary Care 2.0 Role | Clinic Visit Ethnographic Observations | Patient Perspective | Provider Perspective | Care Coordinator Perspective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Providers: MDs paired with an APP (ie, nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and supported by four care coordinators per team | Some teams consult jointly (both provider and care coordinator) with patients during the visita | Cohesive care experience for complex patientsa | Team and APP create access for patientsa | Care coordinators think teamwork is better with Primary Care 2.0, because “you are there the whole time.”a |
| Providers have more supporta | ||||
| Some patients and staff resist APPsb | Patients see care coordinators as part of care teama | |||
| Some providers may resist team‐based care, not wanting to manage “someone else's patient” chronic disease careb | ||||
| Visit preplanning is adapted to include EMR “care coordination note” for team review of patientsc | Patients see providers as more attentive with care coordinator team‐based documentationa | |||
| Care coordinator: Medical assistants coordinate between‐visit care through MyHealth and phone messages, and perform scribing during patient visits to support team‐based documentation | Care coordinators provide value‐add by looking up information relevant to patient carea | Care perceived as more caring, especially with “the new care coordination”a | Some providers uncomfortable with lack of computer access during examsb | Better patient rapport for care coordinatorsa |
| Empowerment for care coordinatorsa | ||||
| Some patients resist care coordinators: “What are your credentials?”b | ||||
| MDs concerned that difficult conversations (addiction) could be more difficult with care coordinators in the roomb | ||||
| Care coordinators expand language options for team (Spanish)a | ||||
| Additional care coordinator training neededb | ||||
| Onsite extended care specialists: Physical therapy, clinical pharmacist with diabetes focus, dietitian, behavioral health, nurse manager/triage | Onsite specialist referrals to physical therapy delayed or deniedb | Convenient access to specialists onsitea | Pharmacist helps manage patients' diabetesa |
Abbreviations: APP, Advanced Practice Provider; EMR, electronic medical record; MD, physician; Pt, patient.
Observations and multistakeholder perspectives on the listed Primary Care 2.0 component that supported the importance of that component (row) and/or had a positive effect on that stakeholder (column).
Observations and multistakeholder perspectives on the listed Primary Care 2.0 component that provided evidence that that component (row) was not important and/or had a negative effect on that stakeholder (column).
Perceived as a change in practice compared to traditional primary care.
Despite generally positive perspectives, some comments and observations suggested that the care coordinator role was not yet fully implemented or adopted in the clinic. For example, constraints on staffing and scheduling meant four of 21 visits lacked scribing. Also, although providers generally appreciated the care coordinators' contribution to team‐based documentation, two providers expressed some discomfort in not having direct computer access during the visit. In her brief after‐visit interview, the MD provider for Patient 4 mentioned that she felt this patient had less information support as a result of scribing, compared with if she, the MD, had access to the computer herself.
Observations identified further training needs for care coordinators, specifically with respect to providing appropriate language support for patients not fluent in English. In a worst case scenario, one care coordinator never directly addressed the patient, instead only addressing his English‐speaking family.
3.2.2. Extended care specialists
Eight of 21 patient visits included extended care specialists in some form, indicating good adoption of specialists into integrated team‐based care. Two patients demonstrated highly positive health outcomes that their primary care providers attributed to their extended care specialists. For example, multiple telephone visits between the pharmacist and one patient with diabetes mellitus preceded successful blood glucose control, and her provider credited this with “keeping this patient out of the hospital.”
Onsite colocation was reported to be an important success factor by both specialists and primary providers, who shared the perception that colocation facilitated access. Providers also noted that they learned from the expert advice available on demand from the clinical pharmacist and behavioral health specialist and that this was an unexpected benefit of the colocated specialists.
3.2.3. MD/APP pairings for team‐based care
Providers reported feeling more supported with team care and appreciated improved patient access, in particular through increased capacity for urgent patient visits accommodated by team providers, either APP or MD. MDs in this system had generally not previously worked with APPs in primary care, and in this context APPs reported wanting “to see the APP role developed … how it differs from a physician.” MDs and APPs may have perceived differences in the scope of their roles, but functionally their role as provider was not differentiated, as one MD noted: “[we are] functioning in the same capacity essentially.”
Patients had varying reactions to APPs as MD substitutes, demonstrating uneven acceptability of the role for patients. Three of 10 patients with APP visits expressed resistance; all three reported having had strong previous attachments to MDs. In contrast, other patients were complimentary of APPs and explicitly expressed trust.
Regardless of uneven patient acceptance of APPs, the role's adoption in the team‐based model system was strong at this early stage of implementation: Almost half of our observed visits were with APPs. Furthermore, APP adoption enabled improved patient access as intended in the model, for example, when an APP provided a same‐day urgent‐care visit for the patient of an unavailable MD provider.
4. DISCUSSION
This rapid ethnography expands the literature on prevention‐focused practice transformation as one of the first studies to document perceptions of team‐based care roles implemented in a modified PCMH model, Primary Care 2.0. Our qualitative results show that where roles were clearly defined (care coordinator and extended care specialists), they served to quickly set expectations and allow transformative culture‐shifting implementation with minimal training. In contrast to the positive acceptance of the novel and clearly defined medical assistant care coordinator, the less novel but less clearly defined APP role engendered resistance and uneven acceptance in a physician‐led primary care practice.
Successful roles in this team‐based model enhanced patient contact with the clinic and notably created unanticipated value, with productive and spontaneous role adaptations as early as 3 months post‐implementation. Indeed, a high functioning team with empowered medical assistants has been hypothesized to be central to successful redesign.14 To wit, we observed that care coordinators practiced to the top of their scope of work, notably by documenting during the visit (scribing), establishing trusting relationships with patients, and even providing unanticipated value by reinforcing patient desires or sharing information from online databases that were relevant to ongoing patient‐provider conversation. This care coordinator role is aligned with new medical assistant roles across the US that emphasize leadership, patient ambassadorship, team‐based documentation, and care coordination15; the role also speaks to international calls for investigations of workforce skill‐mix.16 Notably, this role was successful despite observed gaps in training/competence (eg, with non‐English‐speaking patients).
By contrast, the APP role was not consistently accepted by stakeholders. Our observations suggest this was possibly a result of unclear role definition; even in internal implementation documents, the APP role was defined as “to be determined,” because stakeholders could not come to consensus on the functions of the APP role within this model. This lack of role definition may be a wider spread problem for APPs in traditionally physician‐led settings; other qualitative studies have documented role clarity as a barrier to successful integration of APPs across medical contexts.17 Future planned evaluation of this model includes a focused assessment of the APP role.
Beyond the particular findings, we believe our study demonstrates how an embedded ethnographic approach, conducted early in implementation and with multistakeholder perspectives, can provide rapid and actionable insights and be a key part of evaluating implementation. Team‐based care is arguably the future of primary care18 and a cornerstone of preventive care for patients. As a complex system, it deserves an evaluation approach that is flexible and nuanced and targets the right outcomes at the right time (eg, acceptability and adoption as outcomes in early implementation phase).7 Embedded rapid ethnography addresses growing awareness and movement towards including patient‐centered perspective in evaluation (eg, Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Initiative). In this implementation science quality improvement study, focused primarily on the occasion of the patient visit, we were able to use ethnography to gather rich descriptions of a complex team‐based model. We contend that such rapid ethnography, centered around the patient experience, represents a powerful tool that can underpin state‐of‐the‐art evaluations and contribute to successful evaluation and implementation of practice redesign.
There are two main limitations for this project: Observations were conducted in a single clinic context, and observations were not independently audio or video recorded. To address the first limitation, we observed at two time points and found that observations were consistent, despite changes in clinic staff. To address the second limitation, we used best‐practice ethnographic approaches that emphasize documenting observations as soon as possible (within a half day) to allow for unfiltered and therefore less biased recording of observations.
Primary care redesign has been increasingly evaluated19 but has yet to be thoroughly explored from an implementation science perspective. This study takes a novel implementation science perspective and in so doing highlights a key lesson: Practice redesign can redistribute responsibility and patient connection throughout a team, but success of a team‐based model might depend on clear role definition. Ethnography, conducted early in implementation and with multistakeholder perspectives, can provide rapid and actionable insights to identify where roles may need refinement or re‐definition.
PRIOR PRESENTATIONS
Posters outlining this qualitative rapid ethnography method have been presented at the 2017 Society for General Internal Medicine and 2017 AcademyHealth Annual Conferences.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
No public funding was used for activities reported in this manuscript. The project reported in this manuscript was financially supported by the Stanford Health Care. The article contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of Stanford Health Care, an entity affiliated with, but not a part of, the Stanford School of Medicine where the Evaluation Sciences Unit resides. Authors Asch, Brown‐Johnson, Shaw, Safaeinili, and Winget are affiliated with the Evaluation Sciences Unit. Dr Mahoney is currently a practicing provider in Stanford Health Care's system. Dr Chan is employed by Stanford Health Care.
Brown‐Johnson C, Shaw JG, Safaeinili N, et al. Role definition is key—Rapid qualitative ethnography findings from a team‐based primary care transformation. Learn Health Sys. 2019;3:e10188 10.1002/lrh2.10188
REFERENCES
- 1. Martin JC, Avant RF, Bowman MA, et al. The future of family medicine: a collaborative project of the family medicine community. Ann Fam Med. 2004;1(suppl 1):S3‐S32. 10.1370/AFM.130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Huff C. Direct primary care: concierge care for the masses. Health Aff. 2015;34(12):2016‐2019. 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Nutting PA, Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Jaen CR, Stewart EE, Stange KC. Initial lessons from the first national demonstration project on practice transformation to a patient‐centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(3):254‐260. 10.1370/afm.1002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Stange KC, Nutting PA, Miller WL, et al. Defining and measuring the patient‐centered medical home. J Gen Intern Med. Springer‐Verlag. 10.1007/s11606-010-1291-3. 2010, June 14;25(6):601‐612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Reid RJ, Coleman K, Johnson EA, et al. The group health medical home at year two: cost savings, higher patient satisfaction, and less burnout for providers. Health Aff. 2010;29(5):835‐843. 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Jackson GL, Williams JW. Does PCMH “work”?—the need to use implementation science to make sense of conflicting results. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):1369 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2067‐1370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Holtrop JS, Rabin BA, Glasgow RE. Dissemination and implementation science in primary care research and practice: contributions and opportunities. J Am Board Fam Med: JABFM. 2018;31(3):466‐478. 10.3122/jabfm.2018.03.170259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Brown‐Johnson CG, Chan GK, Winget M, et al. Primary Care 2.0: Design of a transformational team‐based practice model to meet the quadruple aim. Am J Med Qual. 2018. 10.1177/1062860618802365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Chesluk BJ, Holmboe ES. How teams work—or don't—in primary care: a field study on internal medicine practices. Health Aff. 2010;29(5):874‐879. 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.1093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Reves S, Kuper A, Hodges BD. Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. BMJ. 2008;337(514 10.1136/bmj.a1020):a1020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Beebe J. Rapid Assessment Process: An Introduction. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Saleem JJ, Flanagan ME, Russ AL, et al. You and me and the computer makes three: variations in exam room use of the electronic health record. J Am Med Inform Assoc: JAMIA. 2014;21(e1):e147‐e151. 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65‐76. 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Taylor EF, Machta RM, Meyers DS, Genevro J, Peikes DN. Enhancing the primary care team to provide redesigned care: the roles of practice facilitators and care managers. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(1):80‐83. 10.1370/afm.1462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Chapman SA, Blash LK. New roles for medical assistants in innovative primary care practices. Health Serv Res. 2017;52:383‐406. 10.1111/1475-6773.12602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Hansen J, Schafer W, Black N, Groenewegen P. European priorities for research on health care organizations and service delivery. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16(suppl 2):16‐26. 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Jones A, Powell T, Watkins D, Kelly D. Realising their potential? Exploring interprofessional perceptions and potential of the advanced practitioner role: a qualitative analysis. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e009740 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Davis K, Schoenbaum SC, Audet A‐M. A 2020 vision of patient‐centered primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(10):953‐957. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0178.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Koslov S, Trowbridge E, Kamnetz S, Kraft S, Grossman J, Pandhi N. Across the divide: “primary care departments working together to redesign care to achieve the triple aim.” Dent Health. 2016;4(3):200‐206. 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2015.12.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]