Literature DB >> 25500785

Minnesota's Early Experience with Medical Home Implementation: Viewpoints from the Front Lines.

Patricia Fontaine1, Robin Whitebird, Leif I Solberg, Juliana Tillema, Angela Smithson, Benjamin F Crabtree.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence is evolving about the impact of patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) on important outcomes in primary care. Minnesota has developed its own PCMH certification process, envisioned as an all-payer initiative with an emphasis on patient-centeredness, which may add unique experiences and outcomes to the national discussion.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers encountered by nine diverse primary care practices selected from the first 80 to achieve PCMH certification in Minnesota.
DESIGN: This was a qualitative analysis of semi-structured, in-person interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one administrative and clinical leaders, including clinic managers, physician champions, medical directors, nursing supervisors, and care coordinators participated in the study. KEY
RESULTS: Six factors emerged as most important to the efforts to become PMCHs: leadership support, organizational culture, finances, quality improvement (QI) experience, information technology (IT) resources, and patient involvement. Facilitators included committed leadership at local and higher levels, prior experience and ongoing support for QI initiatives, and adequate financial and IT resources. Reimbursement was a significant barrier due to perceived inadequacy and inconsistent participation by health plans. The unsuitability of electronic medical records (EMRs) to PCMH documentation requirements likewise presented ongoing challenges. Many interviewees described patient input as helpful to their clinics' PCMH-related changes and were enthusiastic about their "patient partners." The majority of interviewees felt that becoming a PCMH was right for patients and was personally worthwhile, even while acknowledging the tremendous effort involved and voicing skepticism about reimbursement over the short term.
CONCLUSIONS: The experience of participants in Minnesota's state-wide initiative to legislate PCMH transformation provides a broad view of facilitators and barriers. Unique facilitators included a requirement for patient involvement, which pushed practices to create patient-centered innovations, and new reimbursement models based on quality indicators for a population. Among barriers were the costs to practices and patients, and EMRs that failed to accommodate PCMH requirements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25500785      PMCID: PMC4471008          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-014-3136-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  23 in total

1.  Summary of the National Demonstration Project and recommendations for the patient-centered medical home.

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

2.  Journey to the patient-centered medical home: a qualitative analysis of the experiences of practices in the National Demonstration Project.

Authors:  Paul A Nutting; Benjamin F Crabtree; William L Miller; Elizabeth E Stewart; Kurt C Stange; Carlos Roberto Jaén
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  The patient-centered medical home and health information technology.

Authors:  Teri Leventhal; J Peyton Taliaferro; Kenneth Wong; Cortney Hughes; Seong Mun
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 3.536

4.  Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Bradley; Leslie A Curry; Kelly J Devers
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Early results show WellPoint's patient-centered medical home pilots have met some goals for costs, utilization, and quality.

Authors:  Ruth S Raskas; Lisa M Latts; Jill R Hummel; Douglas Wenners; Harlan Levine; Sam R Nussbaum
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Analysis & commentary. Driving quality gains and cost savings through adoption of medical homes.

Authors:  Daniel Fields; Elizabeth Leshen; Kavita Patel
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Health information exchange: participation by Minnesota primary care practices.

Authors:  Patricia Fontaine; Therese Zink; Raymond G Boyle; John Kralewski
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-04-12

8.  A nationwide survey of patient centered medical home demonstration projects.

Authors:  Asaf Bitton; Carina Martin; Bruce E Landon
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  The policy context of patient centered medical homes: perspectives of primary care providers.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Alexander; Genna R Cohen; Christopher G Wise; Lee A Green
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-07-13       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 10.  Early evaluations of the medical home: building on a promising start.

Authors:  Deborah Peikes; Aparajita Zutshi; Janice L Genevro; Michael L Parchman; David S Meyers
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.229

View more
  12 in total

1.  Don't Believe Everything You Think.

Authors:  Mitchell D Feldman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Patient-Centered Models of Care: Closing the Gaps in Physician Readiness.

Authors:  Anna Chang; Christine Ritchie
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Concept Mapping as a Method to Engage Patients in Clinical Quality Improvement.

Authors:  Marianna LaNoue; Geoffrey Mills; Amy Cunningham; Adam Sharbaugh
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  Pathways to Medical Home Recognition: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the PCMH Transformation Process.

Authors:  Peter Mendel; Emily K Chen; Harold D Green; Courtney Armstrong; Justin W Timbie; Amii M Kress; Mark W Friedberg; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Leading Innovative Practice: Leadership Attributes in LEAP Practices.

Authors:  Benjamin F Crabtree; Jenna Howard; William L Miller; DeANN Cromp; Clarissa Hsu; Katie Coleman; Brian Austin; Margaret Flinter; Leah Tuzzio; Edward H Wagner
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 6.  Promoting Patient and Family Partnerships in Ambulatory Care Improvement: A Narrative Review and Focus Group Findings.

Authors:  Karin E Johnson; Tracy M Mroz; Marie Abraham; Marlaine Figueroa Gray; Mary Minniti; Wendy Nickel; Robert Reid; Jennifer Sweeney; Dominick L Frosch; Debra L Ness; Clarissa Hsu
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 3.845

Review 7.  The Role of the Patient-Centered Medical Home in Treating Depression.

Authors:  Olivia E Bogucki; Mark D Williams; Leif I Solberg; Rebecca C Rossom; Craig N Sawchuk
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 5.285

8.  Middle managers' role in implementing evidence-based practices in healthcare: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sarah Birken; Alecia Clary; Amir Alishahi Tabriz; Kea Turner; Rosemary Meza; Alexandra Zizzi; Madeline Larson; Jennifer Walker; Martin Charns
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2018-12-12       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  Italian Consensus Statement on Patient Engagement in Chronic Care: Process and Outcomes.

Authors:  Guendalina Graffigna; Serena Barello; Giuseppe Riva; Massimo Corbo; Gianfranco Damiani; Primiano Iannone; Albino Claudio Bosio; Walter Ricciardi
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Transforming primary care: scoping review of research and practice.

Authors:  Robin Miller; Catherine Weir; Steve Gulati
Journal:  J Integr Care (Brighton)       Date:  2018
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.