Cited by 24Primary Care and Health OutcomesHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and Education

How can primary care cross the quality chasm?

Open access
Solberg, L. I., Elward, K. S., Phillips, W. R., Gill, J. M., Swanson, G., Main, D. S., Yawn, B. P., Mold, J. W. +2 more·2009·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

The chasm between knowledge and practice decried by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) is the result of other chasms that have not been addressed. They include the chasm between what we know and what we need to know to improve care; the chasm between those who provide primary care and those who do not fund, study, support, or publish practical primary care studies; and the chasm between research and quality improvement (QI). These chasms are a result of problematic concepts, attitudes, traditions, time frames, and financing approaches among the various participants. If we are to facilitate the production and use of the knowledge needed for primary care to cross IOM's chasm, major changes are needed. These changes include the following: (1) admission by all primary care professions that we have quality problems that require our unified attention and action; (2) conversion of the paradigm from "translate research into practice" to "optimizing health and health care through research and QI"; (3) development and facilitation of more partnerships among clinicians, researchers, and care delivery leaders for engaged scholarship in both research and QI; (4) modification of the agendas and methods of funders and researchers so they emphasize the problems of patients and patient care and support practical time frames and research designs; and (5) facilitation by funders and journals of the dissemination and implementation of lessons from QI and practical research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1370/afm.951

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A significant delay exists between the generation of new knowledge and its application into the medical/dental community and patients.

    “A significant delay exists between the generation of breakthroughs and their transfer through applications serving individual patients when science is not efficiently translated to daily clinical practice.”

    From Translating research into everyday clinical practice: Lessons learned from a USA dental practice-based research network (2013) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Abstract and Introduction describe a substantial chasm between knowledge and patient care, and Practical Barriers says researchers rarely have support to implement findings in practice. But Concepts and Attitudes cautions that the problem is not simply delayed translation of existing breakthroughs: relevant evidence is often lacking. The paper addresses primary care, not the dental community. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Enhancing the delivery of established therapies would save more lives than pursuing additional innovations in therapy.

    “Enhancing the delivery of established therapies would save more lives than pursuing additional innovations in therapy [6,3].”

    From Translating research into everyday clinical practice: Lessons learned from a USA dental practice-based research network (2013) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Concepts and Attitudes section treats improving the implementation of care as important. It does not say that better delivery of established therapies would save more lives than developing new therapies; instead, it cautions that knowledge is also lacking for many patient-care decisions. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A substantial difference exists between the health care patients may be eligible for and the health care they actually receive.

    “Therefore, a substantial difference exists between the health care that patients may be eligible for and the health care that they actually receive [3-5].”

    From Translating research into everyday clinical practice: Lessons learned from a USA dental practice-based research network (2013) · cites this paper as [3]

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [12]12. Institute of Medicine. Advancing Quality Improvement Research: Challenges and Opportunities, Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Solberg, L. I., Elward, K. S., Phillips, W. R., Gill, J. M., Swanson, G., Main, D. S., Yawn, B. P., Mold, J. W., Phillips, R. L., & for the Napcrg Committee on Advancing the Science of Family Medicine
Affiliations
  • Regions Hospital (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Colorado Denver (US)
  • Olmsted Medical Center (US)
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
  • HealthPartners (US)
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2009-03-01
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
164-169
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W2135304030
Cited by
24
References
39
Citations by year
2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
primary care, quality improvement, knowledge-practice gap, research utilization, research funding, engaged scholarship, dissemination and implementation, research design, quality of care
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Primary Health Care, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Organizational Culture, Evidence-Based Medicine

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