Background Many patients do not receive guideline-recommended preventive, chronic disease, and acute care. One potential explanation is insufficient time for primary care providers (PCPs) to provide care. Objective To quantify the time needed to provide 2020 preventive care, chronic disease care, and acute care for a nationally representative adult patient panel by a PCP alone, and by a PCP as part of a team-based care model. Design Simulation study applying preventive and chronic disease care guidelines to hypothetical patient panels. Participants Hypothetical panels of 2500 patients, representative of the adult US population based on the 2017–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Main Measures The mean time required for a PCP to provide guideline-recommended preventive, chronic disease and acute care to the hypothetical patient panels. Estimates were also calculated for visit documentation time and electronic inbox management time. Times were re-estimated in the setting of team-based care. Key Results PCPs were estimated to require 26.7 h/day, comprising of 14.1 h/day for preventive care, 7.2 h/day for chronic disease care, 2.2 h/day for acute care, and 3.2 h/day for documentation and inbox management. With team-based care, PCPs were estimated to require 9.3 h per day (2.0 h/day for preventive care and 3.6 h/day for chronic disease care, 1.1 h/day for acute care, and 2.6 h/day for documentation and inbox management). Conclusions PCPs do not have enough time to provide the guideline-recommended primary care. With team-based care the time requirements would decrease by over half, but still be excessive. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-022-07707-x.

Purpose Recruiting patients for clinical research is challenging, especially for underrepresented populations, and may be influenced by patients’ relationships with their physicians, care experiences, and engagement with care. This study sought to understand predictors of enrollment in a research study among socioeconomically diverse participants in studies of care models that promote continuity in the doctor–patient relationship. Method A study of the effects of vitamin D levels and supplementation on COVID-19 risk and outcomes was implemented from 2020 to 2022 within 2 studies of care models at the University of Chicago that promoted continuity of inpatient and outpatient care from the same physician. Hypothesized predictors of vitamin D study enrollment included patient-reported measures of the care experience (quality of relationship with the doctor and their staff, timely receipt of care), engagement in care (scheduling and completing outpatient visits), and engagement with these “parent” studies (follow-up survey completion). The authors used univariate tests and multivariable logistic regression to examine the association of these predictors with enrollment in the vitamin D study among participants in the parent study intervention arms. Results Among 773 eligible participants, 351/561 (63%) in the parent study intervention arms enrolled in the vitamin D study, versus 35/212 (17%) in the control arms. Among intervention arm participants, vitamin D study enrollment was not associated with reported quality of communication with or trust in the doctor, or helpful/respectful office staff, but was associated with report of receiving timely care, more completed clinic visits, and higher parent study follow-up survey completion. Conclusions Study enrollment may be high in care models with high levels of continuity in the doctor–patient relationship. Rates of clinic involvement, parent study engagement, and experience of receiving timely access to care may better predict enrollment than quality of the doctor–patient relationship.