Provider's Perspectives on Building Research and Quality Improvement Capacity in Primary Care: A Strategy to Improve Workforce Satisfaction

Abstract

Objectives: Safety-net populations are underrepresented in research and quality improvement (QI) studies despite the fact that safetynet providers are uniquely positioned to engage in translational research. This study aimed to understand the current level of interest in, experience with, predicted career satisfaction associated with, and barriers experienced in conducting research and QI among primary care providers (PCPs) at 18 safety-net practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area. Methods: The Harvard Catalyst Safety-net Infrastructure Initiative partnered with staff at a large academic public hospital system, including 15 primary care sites, to develop and administer an online survey. This survey was then adapted and administered at three other academically affi liated community health centers. Results: Of the 260 providers surveyed, 136 (52%) responded. Nearly 80% reported interest in conducting either QI projects or clinical research and 95% of them believed it would enhance their career satisfaction. However, 63% did not report prior experience or training in research or QI and 93% reported at least one barrier to engagement. Conclusion: While supporting safety-net PCPs' engagement in research and/or QI may improve career satisfaction there are numerous barriers that must be addressed to achieve this goal. Clin Trans Sci 2013; Volume 6: 404-408

The University of Limerick Education and Research Network for General Practice (ULEARN-GP): practice characteristics and general practitioner perspectives

“…Government investment in supporting academics and supporting establishing PBRNs are necessary in order to build research capacity in primary care [53]. Levers for overcoming the barriers of time and skills capacity, include buying GPs out of clinical time to engage in research and to partner with academics for research training [54].…”

Recruitment and Retention of Community Health Center Primary Care Physicians post MA Health Care Reform: 2008 vs. 2013 Physician Surveys

“…When retention is jeopardized among individual providers, it risks the larger CHC workforce. Independent studies [12][13][14] all confirm the need to bring together mission-driven providers with opportunities that address the non-patient care interests of this workforce (i.e., opportunities for research, teaching, and QI as well as work/ life balance, part-time status, and professional development). Mission may bring providers to CHCs, but without addressing retention, many physicians, especially new graduates, may choose to move to other settings.…”

“…Hayashi et al found that part-time status, access to wellness programs, and practicing in non-rural locations were significant factors for providers remaining at their current location as were practicing for longer than five years in an underserved location 12 and pursuing quality improvement (QI) and research opportunities. 13,14 Hayashi also found that workplace stress, exacerbated by a full-time schedule or isolated geographic location, reduced the likelihood of working in a CHC for significant lengths of time. While Title VII funding for training primary care physicians has been successful in increasing provider supply, many of these new clinicians are ultimately choosing nonprimary care careers.…”

Enhancing collaborative practice-based research in an academic health science center

“…Healthcare professionals working within AHSCs are well positioned to carry out collaborative practice-based research due to their proximity to patients and opportunity to generate clinically driven research questions; [5,7] particularly nurses and health disciplines that collectively comprise the largest healthcare workforce within health care. [5] There are reported benefits around engaging nurses and health disciplines in research in healthcare organizations including increased research productivity, efficiency and reduced patient mortality and morbidity; [8,9] uptake of evidence; [9,10] increased job satisfaction [11] and reduced staff turnover. [8,9] However, although there is a body of literature around discipline specific capacity building research, [4,10,12] there is less known empirically around collaborative practice-based research; particularly in Canada.…”

“…[5] There are reported benefits around engaging nurses and health disciplines in research in healthcare organizations including increased research productivity, efficiency and reduced patient mortality and morbidity; [8,9] uptake of evidence; [9,10] increased job satisfaction [11] and reduced staff turnover. [8,9] However, although there is a body of literature around discipline specific capacity building research, [4,10,12] there is less known empirically around collaborative practice-based research; particularly in Canada. Research involvement from nurses; [13,14] and health disciplines [4,7,15] continues to remain low.…”