Carlos Roberto Jaén

Initial lessons from the first national demonstration project on practice transformation to a patient-centered medical home

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is emerging as a potential catalyst for multiple health care reform efforts. Demonstration projects are beginning in nearly every state, with a broad base of support from employers, insurers, state and federal agencies, and professional organizations. A sense of urgency to show the feasibility of the PCMH, along with a 3-tiered recognition process of the National Committee on Quality Assurance, are influencing the design and implementation of many demonstrations. In June 2006, the American Academy of Family Physicians launched the first National Demonstration Project (NDP) to test a model of the PCMH in a diverse national sample of 36 family practices. The authors make up an independent evaluation team for the NDP that used a multimethod evaluation strategy, including direct observation, in-depth interviews, chart audit, and patient and practice surveys. Early lessons from the real-time qualitative analysis of the NDP raise some serious concerns about the current direction of many of the proposed PCMH demonstration projects and point to some positive opportunities. We describe 6 early lessons from the NDP that address these concerns and then offer 4 recommendations for those assisting the transformation of primary care practices and 4 recommendations for individual practices attempting transformation.

Defining and measuring the patient-centered medical home

AbstractThe patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is four things: 1) the fundamental tenets of primary care: first contact access, comprehensiveness, integration/coordination, and relationships involving sustained partnership; 2) new ways of organizing practice; 3) development of practices’ internal capabilities, and 4) related health care system and reimbursement changes. All of these are focused on improving the health of whole people, families, communities and populations, and on increasing the value of healthcare.The value of the fundamental tenets of primary care is well established. This value includes higher health care quality, better whole-person and population health, lower cost and reduced inequalities compared to healthcare systems not based on primary care.The needed practice organizational and health care system change aspects of the PCMH are still evolving in highly related ways. The PCMH will continue to evolve as evidence comes in from hundreds of demonstrations and experiments ongoing around the country, and as the local and larger healthcare systems change. Measuring the PCMH involves the following:Giving primacy to the core tenets of primary careAssessing practice and system changes that are hypothesized to provide added valueAssessing development of practices’ core processes and adaptive reserveAssessing integration with more functional healthcare system and community resourcesEvaluating the potential for unintended negative consequences from valuing the more easily measured instrumental features of the PCMH over the fundamental relationship and whole system aspectsRecognizing that since a fundamental benefit of primary care is its adaptability to diverse people, populations and systems, functional PCMHs will look different in different settings.Efforts to transform practice to patient-centered medical homes must recognize, assess and value the fundamental features of primary care that provide personalized, equitable health care and foster individual and population health.

HOW VALID ARE MEDICAL RECORDS AND PATIENT QUESTIONNAIRES FOR PHYSICIAN PROFILING AND HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH? A COMPARISON WITH DIRECT OBSERVATION OF PATIENT VISITS

OBJECTIVES This study was designed to determine the optimal nonobservational method of measuring the delivery of outpatient medical services. METHODS As part of a multimethod study of the content of primary care practice, research nurses directly observed consecutive patient visits to 138 practicing family physicians. Data on services delivered were collected using a direct observation checklist, medical record review, and patient exit questionnaires. For each medical service, the sensitivity, specificity, and Kappa statistic were calculated for medical record review and patient exit questionnaires compared with direct observation. Interrater reliability among eight research nurses was calculated using the Kappa statistic for a separate sample of videotaped visits and medical records. RESULTS Visits by 4,454 patients were observed. Exit questionnaires were returned by 74% of patients. Research nurse interrater reliabilities were generally high. The specificity of both the medical record and the patient exit questionnaire was high for most services. The sensitivity of the medical record was low for measuring health habit counseling and moderate for physical examination, laboratory testing, and immunization. The patient exit questionnaire showed moderate to high sensitivity for health habit counseling and immunization and variable sensitivity for physical examination and laboratory services. CONCLUSIONS The validity of the medical record and patient questionnaire for measuring delivery of different health services varied with the service. This report can be used to choose the optimal nonobservational method of measuring the delivery of specific ambulatory medical services for research and physician profiling and to interpret existing health services research studies using these common measures.

Summary of the National Demonstration Project and Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Medical Home

This article summarizes findings from the National Demonstration Project (NDP) and makes recommendations for policy makers and those implementing patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) based on these findings and an understanding of diverse efforts to transform primary care. The NDP was launched in June 2006 as the first national test of a particular PCMH model in a diverse sample of 36 family practices, randomized to facilitated or self-directed groups. An independent evaluation team used a multimethod evaluation strategy, analyzing data from direct observation, depth interviews, e-mail streams, medical record audits, and patient and clinical staff surveys. Peer-reviewed manuscripts from the NDP provide answers to 4 key questions: (1) Can the NDP model be built? (2) What does it take to build the NDP model? (3) Does the NDP model make a difference in quality of care? and (4) Can the NDP model be widely disseminated? We find that although it is feasible to transform independent practices into the NDP conceptualization of a PCMH, this transformation requires tremendous effort and motivation, and benefits from external support. Most practices will need additional resources for this magnitude of transformation. Recommendations focus on the need for the PCMH model to continue to evolve, for delivery system reform, and for sufficient resources for implementing personal and practice development plans. In the meantime, we find that much can be done before larger health system reform.

Patient Outcomes at 26 Months in the Patient-Centered Medical Home National Demonstration Project

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient outcomes in the National Demonstration Project (NDP) of practices’ transition to patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). METHODS In 2006, a total of 36 family practices were randomized to facilitated or self-directed intervention groups. Progress toward the PCMH was measured by independent assessments of how many of 39 predominantly technological NDP model components the practices adopted. We evaluated 2 types of patient outcomes with repeated cross-sectional surveys and medical record audits at baseline, 9 months, and 26 months: patient-rated outcomes and condition-specific quality of care outcomes. Patient-rated outcomes included core primary care attributes, patient empowerment, general health status, and satisfaction with the service relationship. Condition-specific outcomes were measures of the quality of care from the Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance (ACQA) Starter Set and measures of delivery of clinical preventive services and chronic disease care. RESULTS Practices adopted substantial numbers of NDP components over 26 months. Facilitated practices adopted more new components on average than self-directed practices (10.7 components vs 7.7 components, P=.005). ACQA scores improved over time in both groups (by 8.3% in the facilitated group and by 9.1% in the self-directed group, P <.0001) as did chronic care scores (by 5.2% in the facilitated group and by 5.0% in the self-directed group, P=.002), with no significant differences between groups. There were no improvements in patient-rated outcomes. Adoption of PCMH components was associated with improved access (standardized beta [Sβ]=0.32, P = .04) and better prevention scores (Sβ=0.42, P=.001), ACQA scores (Sβ=0.45, P = .007), and chronic care scores (Sβ=0.25, P =.08). CONCLUSIONS After slightly more than 2 years, implementation of PCMH components, whether by facilitation or practice self-direction, was associated with small improvements in condition-specific quality of care but not patient experience. PCMH models that call for practice change without altering the broader delivery system may not achieve their intended results, at least in the short term.

Journey to the Patient-Centered Medical Home: A Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of Practices in the National Demonstration Project

PURPOSE We describe the experience of practices in transitioning toward patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) in the National Demonstration Project (NDP). METHODS The NDP was launched in June 2006 as the first national test of a model of the PCMH in a diverse sample of 36 family practices, randomized to facilitated and self-directed intervention groups. An independent evaluation team used a multimethod evaluation strategy, analyzing data from direct observation, depth interviews, e-mail streams, medical records, and patient and practice surveys. The evaluation team reviewed data from all practices as they became available and produced interim summaries. Four 2- to 3-day evaluation team retreats were held during which case summaries of all practices were discussed and patterns were described. RESULTS The 6 themes that emerged from the data reflect major shifts in individual and practice roles and identities, as well as changes in practices’ management strategies. The themes are (1) practice adaptive reserve is critical to managing change, (2) developmental pathways to success vary considerably by practice, (3) motivation of key practice members is critical, (4) the larger system can help or hinder, (5) practice transformation is more than a series of changes and requires shifts in roles and mental models, and (6) practice change is enabled by the multiple roles that facilitators play. CONCLUSIONS Transformation to a PCMH requires more than a sequence of discrete changes. The practice transformation process may be fostered by promoting adaptive reserve and local control of the developmental pathway.

Effect of Facilitation on Practice Outcomes in the National Demonstration Project Model of the Patient-Centered Medical Home

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to elucidate the effect of facilitation on practice outcomes in the 2-year patient-centered medical home (PCMH) National Demonstration Project (NDP) intervention, and to describe practices’ experience in implementing different components of the NDP model of the PCMH. METHODS Thirty-six family practices were randomized to a facilitated intervention group or a self-directed intervention group. We measured 3 practice-level outcomes: (1) the proportion of 39 components of the NDP model that practices implemented, (2) the aggregate patient rating of the practices’ PCMH attributes, and (3) the practices’ ability to make and sustain change, which we term adaptive reserve. We used a repeated-measures analysis of variance to test the intervention effects. RESULTS By the end of the 2 years of the NDP, practices in both facilitated and self-directed groups had at least 70% of the NDP model components in place. Implementation was relatively harder if the model component affected multiple roles and processes, required coordination across work units, necessitated additional resources and expertise, or challenged the traditional model of primary care. Electronic visits, group visits, team-based care, wellness promotion, and proactive population management presented the greatest challenges. Controlling for baseline differences and practice size, facilitated practices had greater increases in adaptive reserve (group difference by time, P = .005) and the proportion of NDP model components implemented (group difference by time, P=.02); the latter increased from 42% to 72% in the facilitated group and from 54% to 70% in the self-directed group. Patient ratings of the practices’ PCMH attributes did not differ between groups and, in fact, diminished in both of them. CONCLUSIONS Highly motivated practices can implement many components of the PCMH in 2 years, but apparently at a cost of diminishing the patient’s experience of care. Intense facilitation increases the number of components implemented and improves practices’ adaptive reserve. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the sustained and evolving effects of moving independent practices toward PCMHs

Primary Care Practice Development: A Relationship-Centered Approach

PURPOSE Numerous primary care practice development efforts, many related to the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), are emerging across the United States with few guides available to inform them. This article presents a relationship-centered practice development approach to understand practice and to aid in fostering practice development to advance key attributes of primary care that include access to first-contact care, comprehensive care, coordination of care, and a personal relationship over time. METHODS Informed by complexity theory and relational theories of organizational learning, we built on discoveries from the American Academy of Family Physicians’ National Demonstration Project (NDP) and 15 years of research to understand and improve primary care practice. RESULTS Primary care practices can fruitfully be understood as complex adaptive systems consisting of a core (a practice’s key resources, organizational structure, and functional processes), adaptive reserve (practice features that enhance resilience, such as relationships), and attentiveness to the local environment. The effectiveness of these attributes represents the practice’s internal capability. With adequate motivation, healthy, thriving practices advance along a pathway of slow, continuous developmental change with occasional rapid periods of transformation as they evolve better fits with their environment. Practice development is enhanced through systematically using strategies that involve setting direction and boundaries, implementing sensing systems, focusing on creative tensions, and fostering learning conversations. CONCLUSIONS Successful practice development begins with changes that strengthen practices’ core, build adaptive reserve, and expand attentiveness to the local environment. Development progresses toward transformation through enhancing primary care attributes.

Primary care practice transformation is hard work: insights from a 15-year developmental program of research.

BackgroundSerious shortcomings remain in clinical care in the United States despite widespread use of improvement strategies for enhancing clinical performance based on knowledge transfer approaches. Recent calls to transform primary care practice to a patient-centered medical home present even greater challenges and require more effective approaches. MethodsOur research team conducted a series of National Institutes of Health funded descriptive and intervention projects to understand organizational change in primary care practice settings, emphasizing a complexity science perspective. The result was a developmental research effort that enabled the identification of critical lessons relevant to enabling practice change. ResultsA summary of findings from a 15-year program of research highlights the limitations of viewing primary care practices in the mechanistic terms that underlie current or traditional approaches to quality improvement. A theoretical perspective that views primary care practices as dynamic complex adaptive systems with “agents” who have the capacity to learn, and the freedom to act in unpredictable ways provides a better framework for grounding quality improvement strategies. This framework strongly emphasizes that quality improvement interventions should not only use a complexity systems perspective, but also there is a need for continual reflection, careful tailoring of interventions, and ongoing attention to the quality of interactions among agents in the practice. ConclusionsIt is unlikely that current strategies for quality improvement will be successful in transforming current primary care practice to a patient-centered medical home without a stronger guiding theoretical foundation. Our work suggests that a theoretical framework guided by complexity science can help in the development of quality improvement strategies that will more effectively facilitate practice change.

Methods for Evaluating Practice Change Toward a Patient-Centered Medical Home

PURPOSE Understanding the transformation of primary care practices to patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) requires making sense of the change process, multilevel outcomes, and context. We describe the methods used to evaluate the country’s first national demonstration project of the PCMH concept, with an emphasis on the quantitative measures and lessons for multimethod evaluation approaches. METHODS The National Demonstration Project (NDP) was a group-randomized clinical trial of facilitated and self-directed implementation strategies for the PCMH. An independent evaluation team developed an integrated package of quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate the process and outcomes of the NDP for practices and patients. Data were collected by an ethnographic analyst and a research nurse who visited each practice, and from multiple data sources including a medical record audit, patient and staff surveys, direct observation, interviews, and text review. Analyses aimed to provide real-time feedback to the NDP implementation team and lessons that would be transferable to the larger practice, policy, education, and research communities. RESULTS Real-time analyses and feedback appeared to be helpful to the facilitators. Medical record audits provided data on process-of-care outcomes. Patient surveys contributed important information about patient-rated primary care attributes and patient-centered outcomes. Clinician and staff surveys provided important practice experience and organizational data. Ethnographic observations supplied insights about the process of practice development. Most practices were not able to provide detailed financial information. CONCLUSIONS A multimethod approach is challenging, but feasible and vital to understanding the process and outcome of a practice development process. Additional longitudinal follow-up of NDP practices and their patients is needed.