Cited by 156Interprofessional Education and CollaborationPrimary Care and Health OutcomesTeam Dynamics and Performance

The complexity, diversity, and science of primary care teams.

Fiscella, Kevin, McDaniel, Susan H.·2018·American Psychologist

Abstract

This article examines the past, present and future of primary care and teamwork. It begins with a definition and description of primary care-its uniqueness, diversity and complexity, including the historical role of teams within primary care. The article then reviews the emergence of innovative primary care teams, including those grounded in new processes such as the Patient-Centered Medical Home and interprofessional teams that include new types of health professionals, particularly psychologists and other integrated behavioral health clinicians. The article describes key factors that support or hinder primary care teamwork, as well as evidence of the impact of these team-based models on patient outcomes, costs, and team members. It also discusses the role of primary care teams within multiteam systems (or 'teams of teams'), which are organized around the needs of patients and families, and the unique challenges these systems pose to coordinating care. The article concludes with recommendations for advancing teams in primary care, including changes in payment, descriptions of team competencies, models for primary care team training, and research necessary to inform the gaps in scientific knowledge. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/amp0000244

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Effective team-based care and higher quality teamwork are associated with improvements in care access and quality, patient safety, patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and costs.

    “Effective team-based care and higher quality teamwork are associated with improvements in care access and quality, patient safety, patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and costs [2, 4–9].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 114 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fiscella, K., & McDaniel, S. H.
Affiliations
University of Rochester Medicine (US)
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
2018-05
Volume
73
Issue
4
Pages
451-467
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W2804270352
Cited by
155
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 1
FWCI
33.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
primary health care teams, teamwork, patient-centered medical home, multidisciplinary team, behavioral health integration, multiteam systems, team-based care, care coordination, team competence, team training, payment reform, history of primary care
MeSH terms
Intersectoral Collaboration, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Patient Care Team, Primary Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review