IMPORTANCE Interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP), the collaboration of health workers from different professional backgrounds with patients, families, caregivers, and communities, is central to optimal primary care. However, limited evidence exists regarding its association with patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE To examine the association of ICP with hemoglobin A 1C (HbA 1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels among adults receiving primary care.

No abstract

Systematic reviews have provided some insight into the impact of interprofessional collaborative practice on patient outcomes. Despite strong interest in interprofessional collaborative practice, relatively little is known about its impact in primary care settings. This scoping literature review describes the essential elements of an interprofessional primary care practice and explores what is known about its impact on patient care including clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. We completed a review of the literature examining the breadth of knowledge related to interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care settings. A search was conducted to identify studies based on predefined criteria. A total of 51 studies met the criteria. A total of 27 studies reported a significantly positive clinical outcome with the interprofessional collaborative practice model, 27 studies reported no difference, and one study reported negative outcome in mortality. A total of 15 studies reported a significantly positive humanistic outcome. There was little to no difference in economic outcomes. This study provides new insights for future research that examines the impact of interprofessional primary care practice.

Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (GGPBT) has been a cornerstone in the education of pharmacists, physicians, and pharmacologists for decades. The objectives of this study were to describe and evaluate the 13th edition of GGPBT on bases including: (1) author characteristics; (2) recency of citations; (3) conflict of interest (CoI) disclosure; (4) expert evaluation of chapters. Contributors’ (N = 115) sex, professional degrees, and presence of undisclosed potential CoI—as reported by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid’s Open Payments (2013–2017)—were examined. The year of publication of citations was extracted relative to Katzung’s Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (KatBCP), and DiPiro’s Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach (DiPPAPA). Content experts provided thorough chapter reviews. The percent of GGPBT contributors that were female (20.9%) was equivalent to those in KatBCP (17.0%). Citations in GGPBT (11.5 ± 0.2 years) were significantly older than those in KatBCP (10.4 ± 0.2) and DiPPAPA (9.1 ± 0.1, p < 0.0001). Contributors to GGPBT received USD 3 million in undisclosed remuneration (Maximum author = USD 743,718). In contrast, DiPPAPA made CoI information available. Reviewers noted several strengths but also some areas for improvement. GGPBT will continue to be an important component of the biomedical curriculum. Areas of improvement include a more diverse authorship, improved conflict of interest transparency, and a greater inclusion of more recent citations.

No abstract