Kurt C. Stange

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.

The Problem of Fragmentation and the Need for Integrative Solutions

In the United States[1][1],[2][2] and around the world[3][3] we face enormous healthcare problems of unsustainable cost increases, poor quality, and inequalities. The low value of the US healthcare system and analogous difficulties in other countries have elicited calls for bold action. Strategic

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.

Direct observation of exercise counseling in community family practice

BACKGROUND Despite the large potential of dietary changes to reduce morbidity and mortality, the frequency, time spent, and factors associated with nutrition counseling in primary care are not well studied. METHODS In a cross-sectional study of 84 family physician practices in northeast Ohio, nutrition counseling was measured by direct observation on 2 days for all consecutive ambulatory visits. The frequency, time spent, and patient and visit characteristics associated with nutrition counseling were determined. RESULTS Among 138 family physicians, only 6% included nutrition counseling in the majority (>50%) of patient encounters. Among 3475 consecutive outpatient visits in adults, nutrition counseling occurred in 24% of all patient visits, 17% of visits for acute illnesses, 30% of chronic illness visits, and 41% of well-care visits. The average time spent on nutrition counseling was 55 seconds, ranging from <20 seconds to >6 minutes. Nutrition counseling occurred in 45% of visits for diabetes, 25% of visits for cardiovascular disease, 31% of visits for hypertension, 26% of prenatal visits, and 33% of visits by obese patients (body mass index >30). Nutrition counseling was more likely to occur during visits by patients who were older or had diabetes mellitus, during visits for well care or chronic illness, and during longer visits. CONCLUSION Despite considerable variability from physician to physician, nutrition counseling occurs in approximately one fourth of all office visits to family physicians. The observed efforts by family physicians to focus nutrition counseling on high-risk patients may increase its impact.

The Paradox of Primary Care

Despite rising costs, health care often is of poor quality.[1][1]–[4][2] Current solutions to improving quality may do more harm than good if they focus more on diseases than on people.[2][3],[5][4]–[9][5] Efforts to improve the parts (evidence-based care of specific diseases)[10][6]–[13][7]

A comparison of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) measurement approach with direct observation of outpatient visits.

BackgroundThe National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) informs a wide range of important policy and clinical decisions by providing nationally representative data about outpatient practice. However, the validity of the NAMCS methods has not been compared with a reference standard. MethodsOffice visits of 549 patients visiting 30 family physicians in Northeastern Ohio were observed by trained research nurses. Visit content measured by direct observation was compared with data reported by physicians using the 1993 NAMCS form. ResultsOutpatient visit physician reports of procedures and examinations using the NAMCS method showed generally good concordance with direct observation measures, with kappas ranging from 0.39 for ordering a chest x-ray to 0.86 for performance of Pap smears. Concordance was generally lower for health behavior counseling, with kappas ranging from 0.21 for alcohol counseling to 0.60 for smoking cessation advice. The NAMCS form had high specificity (range, 0.90–0.99) but variable (range, 0.12–.84) sensitivity compared with direct observation, with the lowest sensitivities for health behavior counseling. The NAMCS physician report method overestimated visit duration in comparison with direct observation (16.5 vs. 12.8 minutes). ConclusionsCompared with direct observation of outpatient visits, the NAMCS physician report method is more accurate for procedures and examinations than for health behavior counseling. Underreporting of behavioral counseling and overreporting of visit duration should lead to caution in interpreting findings based on these variables.

A clinical trial of tailored office systems for preventive service delivery: The Study to Enhance Prevention by Understanding Practice (STEP-UP)

BACKGROUND The potential of primary care practice settings to prevent disease and morbidity through health habit counseling, screening for asymptomatic disease, and immunizations has been incompletely met. This study was designed to test a practice-tailored approach to increasing preventive service delivery with particular emphasis on health habit counseling. DESIGN Group randomized clinical trial and multimethod process assessment. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS Seventy-seven community family practices in northeast Ohio. INTERVENTION After a 1-day practice assessment, a nurse facilitator met with practice clinicians and staff and assisted them with choosing and implementing individualized tools and approaches aimed at increasing preventive service delivery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Summary scores of the health habit counseling, screening and immunization services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force up to date for consecutive patients during randomly selected chart review days. RESULTS A significant increase (p=0.015) in global preventive service delivery rates at the 1-year follow-up was found in the intervention group (31% to 42%) compared to the control group (35% to 37%). Rates specifically for health habit counseling (p=0.007) and screening services (p=0.048) were increased, but not for immunizations. CONCLUSIONS An approach to increasing preventive service delivery that is individualized to meet particular practice needs can increase global preventive service delivery rates.

The Association of Attributes of Primary Care With the Delivery of Clinical Preventive Services

OBJECTIVES Evidence is building that primary care is associated with quality of care and cost effectiveness. Still, little is known of the contribution of specific attributes of primary care to important health outcomes, such as the delivery of preventive services. This study tests the association of specific attributes of primary care with a comprehensive measure of the delivery of preventive services. METHODS A cross-sectional multimethod study design was used to examine 2,889 patient visits to 138 community-based primary care physicians. Four primary care attributes were measured: patient preference for their regular physician, interpersonal communication, physicians accumulated knowledge of the patient, and coordination of care. Delivery of US Preventive Service Task Force-recommended services were based on data collected from direct observation and medical record review. Hierarchical linear regression models (HLM) were used to test the association of each of the primary care attributes with being up to date on screening, immunization, and health habit counseling preventive services. Each regression model was adjusted for patient age, race, health status, and insurance type. RESULTS Interpersonal communication and coordination of care scale scores were associated with being more up to date on screening services and health habit counseling. Accumulated knowledge and preference for regular physician were associated with being more up to date on immunizations. CONCLUSIONS The attributes of primary care measured in this study are associated with the receipt of preventive services. Fostering the tenets of primary care may have an impact on the delivery of preventive services and possibly other important health outcomes.