Original Research

TEAM approach reduced wait time, improved “face” time

J Fam Pract. 2018 August;67(8):E1-E8

References

1. Sinsky C, Colligan L, Li L, et al. Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:753-760.

2. McDonald CJ, Callaghan FM, Weissman A, et al. Use of internist’s free time by ambulatory care electronic medical record systems. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1860-1863.

3. Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky C, et al. Relationship between clerical burden and characteristics of the electronic environment with physician burnout and professional satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:836-848.

4. Friedberg MW, Chen PG, Van Busum KR, et al. Factors affecting physician professional satisfaction and their implications for patient care, health systems, and health policy. Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR439.html#key-findings. Accessed October 25, 2016.

5. Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R, et al. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:e100-e106.

6. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 2001.

7. Shanafelt TD, Hasan O, Dyrbye LN, et al. Changes in burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance in physicians and the general US working population between 2011 and 2014. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2015;90:1600-1613.

8. DeMatteo MR, Sherbourne CD, Hays RD, et al. Physicians’ characteristics influence patients’ adherence to medical treatment: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Health Psychol. 1993;12:93-102.

9. Shanafelt TD, Bradley KA, Wipf JE, et al. Burnout and self-reported patient care in an internal medicine residency program. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:358-367.

10. Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G, et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg. 2010;251:995-1000.

11. Haas JS, Cook EF, Puopolo AL, et al. Is the professional satisfaction of general internists associated with patient satisfaction? J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:122-128.

12. Linzer M, Poplau S, Grossman E, et al. A cluster randomized trial of interventions to improve work conditions and clinician burnout in primary care: results from the Healthy Work Place (HWP) Study. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30:1105-1011.

13. Ferrer RL, Mody-Bailey P, Jaén CR, et al. A medical assistant-based program to promote healthy behaviors in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7:504-512.

14. Sinsky CA, Williard-Grace R, Schutzbank AM, et al. In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11:272-278.

15. Reuben DB, Knudsen J, Senelick W, et al. The effect of a physician partner program on physician efficiency and patient satisfaction. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1190-1193.

16. Hopkins K, Sinsky CA. Team-based care: saving time and improving efficiency. Fam Pract Manag. 2014;21:23-29.

17. Yan C, Rose S, Rothberg MB, et al. Physician, scribe, and patient perspectives on clinical scribes in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31:990-995.

18. Misra-Hebert AD, Rabovsky A, Yan C, et al. A team-based model of primary care delivery and physician-patient interaction. Am J Med. 2015;128:1025-1028.

19. Anderson RJ. Optimizing the role of nursing staff to enhance physician productivity: one physician’s journey. Fam Pract Manag. 2013;20:18-22.

20. Anderson P, Halley MD. A new approach to making your doctor-nurse team more productive. Fam Pract Manag. 2008:15:35-40.

21. Sinsky CA. Dissatisfaction among Wisconsin physicians is part of a serious national trend. Wis Med J. 2015;114:132-133.

22. Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12:573-576.

We correctly predicted MAs would have difficulty documenting the assessment, plan, and medical decision making. We discovered that MAs more easily categorized and articulated information when we reframed the assessment and plan in first-person and placed it under “Patient instructions.” For this to occur, physicians had to learn to accurately articulate their thought process and instructions to the patient.

When training was provided, as previously described, MAs grasped the subjective section quickly. Surprisingly, they had most difficulty understanding terminology within the objective section. In the future, we would avert this problem by working closely with the human resource department. We believe there should be a newly defined position and additional training for MAs in these roles, since duties such as patient-coaching and documentation assistance may warrant separate certification.

Limitations

Our findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations. Implementing the new model was carried out in a single organization. The patients who were selected and agreed to be interviewed may have differed from the patient population as a whole. We did not measure some important outcomes, such as cost effectiveness and patient morbidity. We did not analyze the data to determine whether the apparent improvements in wait time and cycle time were statistically significant. In addition, measurement of any adverse effects was beyond the scope of this study.

Looking forward

The traditional model of physicians working individually with minimal support staff is no longer viable. To echo our co-author (CAS)’s recent statements on physician dissatisfaction, “The days of hero medicine, with the doctor doing it all, belong in the past.”²¹ The new model appeared to alleviate some administrative burdens and increase physician time with patients. Pressures to achieve quality measures and growing administrative tasks have altered the role and responsibilities of each member of the team.

It's possible some patients might have felt uneasy with the TEAM approach, but many expressed gratitude for an extra set of ears and eyes to guide them through the visit.

Any sustainable system must address the larger crisis of physician dissatisfaction.^7,22 We cannot focus on a single perspective—patient, physician, or MA—at the expense of the system as a whole. If the health care system is to resolve the epidemic of burnout and physician dissatisfaction, new approaches to patient care must be imagined and realized. Although we faced many challenges in implementing and evaluating the TEAM model, attempts to overcome these challenges appear justified because of our overall favorable impression of it. Innovations like the TEAM Primary Care model may help us improve the well-being of not just our patients but also our health professionals and the health care industry as a whole.

CORRESPONDENCE
James Milford, MD, Three Oaks Health, S.C., 480 Village Walk Lane, Suite F, Johnson Creek, WI 53038; jam@threeoakshealthcare.com.

SUPPORT
Although the Watertown Regional Medical Center has provided general funding for its Primary Care Transformation project, no dollars were specifically earmarked for the TEAM Primary Care process. Support for editorial services in preparing this article was provided by Dr. James Milford.

PRIOR PRESENTATIONS
Co-author Michael R. Strasser, MPA, presented this project at the 2015 i-PrACTISE conference in Madison, Wis, April 12-14, 2015. http://www.fammed.wisc.edu/i-practise/. The proceedings were not published or recorded.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Annalynn Skipper and Masarah Van Eyck for their valuable edits.