BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has become a widely cited solution to the deficiencies in primary care delivery in the United States. To achieve the magnitude of change being called for in primary care, quality improvement interventions must focus on whole-system redesign, and not just isolated parts of medical practices. METHODS: Investigators participating in 9 different evaluations of Patient Centered Medical Home implementation shared experiences, methodological strategies, and evaluation challenges for evaluating primary care practice redesign. RESULTS: A year-long iterative process of sharing and reflecting on experiences produced consensus on 7 recommendations for future PCMH evaluations: (1) look critically at models being implemented and identify aspects requiring modification; (2) include embedded qualitative and quantitative data collection to detail the implementation process; (3) capture details concerning how different PCMH components interact with one another over time; (4) understand and describe how and why physician and staff roles do, or do not evolve; (5) identify the effectiveness of individual PCMH components and how they are used; (6) capture how primary care practices interface with other entities such as specialists, hospitals, and referral services; and (7) measure resources required for initiating and sustaining innovations. CONCLUSIONS: Broad-based longitudinal, mixed-methods designs that provide for shared learning among practice participants, program implementers, and evaluators are necessary to evaluate the novelty and promise of the PCMH model. All PCMH evaluations should as comprehensive as possible, and at a minimum should include a combination of brief observations and targeted qualitative interviews along with quantitative measures.
BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has become a widely cited solution to the deficiencies in primary care delivery in the United States. To achieve the magnitude of change being called for in primary care, quality improvement interventions must focus on whole-system redesign, and not just isolated parts of medical practices. METHODS: Investigators participating in 9 different evaluations of Patient Centered Medical Home implementation shared experiences, methodological strategies, and evaluation challenges for evaluating primary care practice redesign. RESULTS: A year-long iterative process of sharing and reflecting on experiences produced consensus on 7 recommendations for future PCMH evaluations: (1) look critically at models being implemented and identify aspects requiring modification; (2) include embedded qualitative and quantitative data collection to detail the implementation process; (3) capture details concerning how different PCMH components interact with one another over time; (4) understand and describe how and why physician and staff roles do, or do not evolve; (5) identify the effectiveness of individual PCMH components and how they are used; (6) capture how primary care practices interface with other entities such as specialists, hospitals, and referral services; and (7) measure resources required for initiating and sustaining innovations. CONCLUSIONS: Broad-based longitudinal, mixed-methods designs that provide for shared learning among practice participants, program implementers, and evaluators are necessary to evaluate the novelty and promise of the PCMH model. All PCMH evaluations should as comprehensive as possible, and at a minimum should include a combination of brief observations and targeted qualitative interviews along with quantitative measures.
Authors: Carlos Roberto Jaén; Benjamin F Crabtree; Raymond F Palmer; Robert L Ferrer; Paul A Nutting; William L Miller; Elizabeth E Stewart; Robert Wood; Marivel Davila; Kurt C Stange Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: William L Miller; Benjamin F Crabtree; Paul A Nutting; Kurt C Stange; Carlos Roberto Jaén Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Dana Gelb Safran; Melinda Karp; Kathryn Coltin; Hong Chang; Angela Li; John Ogren; William H Rogers Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Dennis P Scanlon; Jillian B Harvey; Laura J Wolf; Jocelyn M Vanderbrink; Bethany Shaw; Yunfeng Shi; Yasmin Mahmud; M Susan Ridgely; Cheryl L Damberg Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Gordon D Schiff; Harry Reyes Nieva; Paula Griswold; Nicholas Leydon; Judy Ling; Frank Federico; Carol Keohane; Bonnie R Ellis; Cathy Foskett; E John Orav; Catherine Yoon; Don Goldmann; Joel S Weissman; David W Bates; Madeleine Biondolillo; Sara J Singer Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Gordon D Schiff; Harry Reyes Nieva; Paula Griswold; Nicholas Leydon; Judy Ling; Madeleine Biondolillo; Sara J Singer Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Katrina Armstrong; Nancy L Keating; Michael Landry; Bradley H Crotty; Russell S Phillips; Harry P Selker Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Roberta E Goldman; Donna R Parker; Joanna Brown; Judith Walker; Charles B Eaton; Jeffrey M Borkan Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Danielle F Loeb; Lori A Crane; Erin Leister; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Evette Ludman; Ingrid A Binswanger; Danielle M Kline; Meredith Smith; Frank V deGruy; Donald E Nease; L Miriam Dickinson Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Zhehui Luo; Qiaoling Chen; Ann M Annis; Gretchen Piatt; Lee A Green; Min Tao; Jodi Summers Holtrop Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 5.128