BACKGROUND: The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), a popular model for primary care reorganization, includes several structural capabilities intended to enhance quality of care. The extent to which different types of primary care practices have adopted these capabilities has not been previously studied. OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of recommended structural capabilities among primary care practices and to determine whether prevalence varies among practices of different size (number of physicians) and administrative affiliation with networks of practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One physician chosen at random from each of 412 primary care practices in Massachusetts was surveyed about practice capabilities during 2007. Practice size and network affiliation were obtained from an existing database. MEASUREMENTS: Presence of 13 structural capabilities representing 4 domains relevant to quality: patient assistance and reminders, culture of quality, enhanced access, and electronic health records (EHRs). MAIN RESULTS: Three hundred eight (75%) physicians responded, representing practices with a median size of 4 physicians (range 2-74). Among these practices, 64% were affiliated with 1 of 9 networks. The prevalence of surveyed capabilities ranged from 24% to 88%. Larger practice size was associated with higher prevalence for 9 of the 13 capabilities spanning all 4 domains (P < 0.05). Network affiliation was associated with higher prevalence of 5 capabilities (P < 0.05) in 3 domains. Associations were not substantively altered by statistical adjustment for other practice characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Larger and network-affiliated primary care practices are more likely than smaller, non-affiliated practices to have adopted several recommended capabilities. In order to achieve PCMH designation, smaller non-affiliated practices may require the greatest investments.
BACKGROUND: The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), a popular model for primary care reorganization, includes several structural capabilities intended to enhance quality of care. The extent to which different types of primary care practices have adopted these capabilities has not been previously studied. OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of recommended structural capabilities among primary care practices and to determine whether prevalence varies among practices of different size (number of physicians) and administrative affiliation with networks of practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One physician chosen at random from each of 412 primary care practices in Massachusetts was surveyed about practice capabilities during 2007. Practice size and network affiliation were obtained from an existing database. MEASUREMENTS: Presence of 13 structural capabilities representing 4 domains relevant to quality: patient assistance and reminders, culture of quality, enhanced access, and electronic health records (EHRs). MAIN RESULTS: Three hundred eight (75%) physicians responded, representing practices with a median size of 4 physicians (range 2-74). Among these practices, 64% were affiliated with 1 of 9 networks. The prevalence of surveyed capabilities ranged from 24% to 88%. Larger practice size was associated with higher prevalence for 9 of the 13 capabilities spanning all 4 domains (P < 0.05). Network affiliation was associated with higher prevalence of 5 capabilities (P < 0.05) in 3 domains. Associations were not substantively altered by statistical adjustment for other practice characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Larger and network-affiliated primary care practices are more likely than smaller, non-affiliated practices to have adopted several recommended capabilities. In order to achieve PCMH designation, smaller non-affiliated practices may require the greatest investments.
Authors: Diane R Rittenhouse; Lawrence P Casalino; Robin R Gillies; Stephen M Shortell; Bernard Lau Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: James C Martin; Robert F Avant; Marjorie A Bowman; John R Bucholtz; John R Dickinson; Kenneth L Evans; Larry A Green; Douglas E Henley; Warren A Jones; Samuel C Matheny; Janice E Nevin; Sandra L Panther; James C Puffer; Richard G Roberts; Denise V Rodgers; Roger A Sherwood; Kurt C Stange; Cynthia W Weber Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Lawrence Casalino; Robin R Gillies; Stephen M Shortell; Julie A Schmittdiel; Thomas Bodenheimer; James C Robinson; Thomas Rundall; Nancy Oswald; Helen Schauffler; Margaret C Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003 Jan 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Benjamin F Crabtree; Paul A Nutting; William L Miller; Kurt C Stange; Elizabeth E Stewart; Carlos Roberto Jaén Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Jonathan M Birnberg; Melinda L Drum; Elbert S Huang; Lawrence P Casalino; Sarah E Lewis; Anusha M Vable; Hui Tang; Michael T Quinn; Deborah L Burnet; Thomas Summerfelt; Marshall H Chin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-08-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Robert A Gabbay; Mark W Friedberg; Michelle Miller-Day; Peter F Cronholm; Alan Adelman; Eric C Schneider Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sanja Percac-Lima; Lydia E Pace; Kevin H Nguyen; Charis N Crofton; Katharine A Normandin; Sara J Singer; Meredith B Rosenthal; Alyna T Chien Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jan van Lieshout; Margalith Goldfracht; Stephen Campbell; Sabine Ludt; Michel Wensing Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Joseph S Zickafoose; Sarah J Clark; Joseph W Sakshaug; Lena M Chen; John M Hollingsworth Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Kurt C Stange; Paul A Nutting; William L Miller; Carlos R Jaén; Benjamin F Crabtree; Susan A Flocke; James M Gill Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.128