Alan Katz1, Nicole Herpai2, Glenys Smith2, Kris Aubrey-Bassler2, Mylaine Breton2, Antoine Boivin2, William Hogg2, Baukje Miedema2, Jocelyn Pang2, Walter P Wodchis2, Sabrina T Wong2. 1. Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, Departments of Community Health Sciences and Family Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (Katz); Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (Herpai); The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada (Smith); Department of Family Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada (Aubrey-Bassler); Département des sciences de la santé communautaire, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada (Breton); Department of Family Medicine, Université de Montréal Hospital Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Boivin); Bruyere Research Institute, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Hogg); Department of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (Miedema); Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Pang, Wodchis); Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Wodchis); Centre for Health Services and Policy Research and School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (Wong). alan_katz@cpe.umanitoba.ca. 2. Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, Departments of Community Health Sciences and Family Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (Katz); Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (Herpai); The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada (Smith); Department of Family Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada (Aubrey-Bassler); Département des sciences de la santé communautaire, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada (Breton); Department of Family Medicine, Université de Montréal Hospital Research Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Boivin); Bruyere Research Institute, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Hogg); Department of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (Miedema); Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Pang, Wodchis); Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Wodchis); Centre for Health Services and Policy Research and School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (Wong).
Abstract
PURPOSE: The patient medical home (PMH) model aims to improve patient satisfaction and health outcomes in Canada, but since its introduction in 2009, there has been no evaluation of the extent to which primary care conforms with PMH attributes. Our objective was to compare current primary care across Canada with the 10 goals of the PMH model. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of primary care organization and delivery was conducted in Canadian provinces to evaluate the PMH-based attributes of primary care practices. Family physician and patient responses were mapped to the 10 goals of the PMH model. We used regression models to describe the provinces' success in meeting the goals, taking specific practice characteristics into account. We created a PMH composite score by weighting each goal equally for each practice and aggregating these by province. The PMH score is the sum of the values for each goal, which were scored from 0 to 1; a score of 10 indicates that all 10 goals of the PMH model were achieved. RESULTS: Seven hundred seventy-two primary care practices and 7,172 patients participated in the survey. The average national PMH score was 5.36 (range 4.75-6.23) of 10. Ontario was the only province to score significantly higher than Canada as a whole, whereas Québec, Newfoundland/Labrador, and New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island scored below the national average. There was little variation, however, among provinces in achieving the 10 PMH goals. CONCLUSIONS: Provincial PMH scores indicate considerable room for improvement if the PMH goals are to be fully implemented in Canada.
PURPOSE: The patient medical home (PMH) model aims to improve patient satisfaction and health outcomes in Canada, but since its introduction in 2009, there has been no evaluation of the extent to which primary care conforms with PMH attributes. Our objective was to compare current primary care across Canada with the 10 goals of the PMH model. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of primary care organization and delivery was conducted in Canadian provinces to evaluate the PMH-based attributes of primary care practices. Family physician and patient responses were mapped to the 10 goals of the PMH model. We used regression models to describe the provinces' success in meeting the goals, taking specific practice characteristics into account. We created a PMH composite score by weighting each goal equally for each practice and aggregating these by province. The PMH score is the sum of the values for each goal, which were scored from 0 to 1; a score of 10 indicates that all 10 goals of the PMH model were achieved. RESULTS: Seven hundred seventy-two primary care practices and 7,172 patients participated in the survey. The average national PMH score was 5.36 (range 4.75-6.23) of 10. Ontario was the only province to score significantly higher than Canada as a whole, whereas Québec, Newfoundland/Labrador, and New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island scored below the national average. There was little variation, however, among provinces in achieving the 10 PMH goals. CONCLUSIONS: Provincial PMH scores indicate considerable room for improvement if the PMH goals are to be fully implemented in Canada.
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
Authors: Willemijn L A Schäfer; Wienke G W Boerma; Dionne S Kringos; Jan De Maeseneer; Stefan Gress; Stephanie Heinemann; Danica Rotar-Pavlic; Chiara Seghieri; Igor Svab; Michael J Van den Berg; Milena Vainieri; Gert P Westert; Sara Willems; Peter P Groenewegen Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Sabrina T Wong; Leena W Chau; William Hogg; Gary F Teare; Baukje Miedema; Mylaine Breton; Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Alan Katz; Fred Burge; Antoine Boivin; Tim Cooke; Danièle Francoeur; Walter P Wodchis Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Sabrina T Wong; Sharon Johnston; Fred Burge; Mehdi Ammi; John L Campbell; Alan Katz; Ruth Martin-Misener; Sandra Peterson; Manpreet Thandi; Jeannie Haggerty; William Hogg Journal: Healthc Policy Date: 2021-11
Authors: Alexandra Lukey; Sharon Johnston; Stephanie Montesanti; Catherine Donnelly; Paul Wankah; Mylaine Breton; Isabelle Gaboury; Simone Parniak; Caille Pritchard; Shannon Berg; Karin Maiwald; Sara Mallinson; Lee A Green; Nelly D Oelke Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 5.120