McLeod, Heidi

The optimal patient panel size (PPS) in primary care and the factors determining it remain unclear. We conducted a meta-narrative review of the literature to evaluate factors influencing PPS and assess its association with patient outcomes. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed from inception through December 2023, focusing on original studies reporting factors used to determine PPS and related outcomes (eg, clinical outcomes, process measures, and resource utilization). A total of 48 studies were included, identifying 7 key factors influencing PPS. Smaller panels were associated with improved patient satisfaction, continuity of care, and health promotion, while clinical outcomes, utilization, and costs showed minimal impact by PPS. Panel size was primarily associated with patient age, sex, comorbidities, and practice type and structure. Community-based centers typically managed smaller panels, often staffed by female clinicians and serving socioeconomically disadvantaged populations with greater health needs than hospital-based practices. Female clinicians were also independently associated with managing smaller panels, higher quality care indicators, fewer emergency department visits, and improved patient satisfaction. Determining the ideal PPS is a multifaceted process influenced by practice setting, patient demographics, and clinician characteristics. While practice-related factors showed limited association with PPS, patient-reported outcomes were more closely linked to it. Primary care practices should tailor panel sizes to their patient populations, emphasizing a patient-centered approach and ensuring adequate infrastructure support to optimize care delivery.

Background Employee wellness programs can help manage stress and alleviate burnout. Objective To pilot and disseminate the Intentional Action(InAct) concept for employee wellbeing. Methods Five independent interactive workshop-lectures with an automated audience response system. Descriptive analysis of participant response data. Results Participants (n = 275): rated spirituality, physical environment and nutrition the most highly in contributing to their present well-being. Ninety-eight percent (n = 269) of participants identified a focus area to work on. The well-being area most selected was Exercise, (35% n = 95), however, other non-traditional areas, including Personal and Professional Development (18% n = 48), Relationships and Communication (17% n = 47), were selected, along with mind-body connection and mindful awareness (6% n = 15 and n = 16). Conclusion The pilot engaged employees to reflect and set goals for their future well-being. Healthcare institutions implementing programs should consider a broad range of whole person strategies addressing employee well-being, which go beyond the traditional focus on exercise and nutrition.