The Patient-Centered Medical Home and Patient Experience

Department of Health Policy and Administration, Pennsylvania State University, 610 N Euclid Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15206.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 06/2012; 47(6). DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01429.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between practices' reported use of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) processes and patients' perceptions of their care experience. DATA SOURCE: Primary survey data from 393 physician practices and 1,304 patients receiving care in those practices. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational, cross-sectional study. Using standard ordinary least-squares and a sample selection model, we estimated the association between patients' care experience and the use of PCMH processes in the practices where they receive care. DATA COLLECTION: We linked data from a nationally representative survey of individuals with chronic disease and two nationally representative surveys of physician practices. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found that practices' use of PCMH processes was not associated with patient experience after controlling for sample selection as well as practice and patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, which was large, but somewhat limited in its measures of the PCMH and of patient experience, we found no association between PCMH processes and patient experience. The continued accumulation of evidence related to the possibilities of the PCMH, how PCMH is measured, and how the impact of PCMH is gauged provides important information for health care decision makers.

Download full-text


Available from: Dennis Scanlon, May 07, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Considering the demographic development models for primary care have to be focused on chronic illness care especially. The so called "Hausarztzentrierte Versorgung" (HzV) in Baden-Wuerttemberg constitutes such a model of an implementation of family doctor-centred health care. For evaluation purposes the perspective of patients is of particular interest. Therefore the aim of this study was to analyse how chronically ill patients assess their medical care. Altogether 53 primary care practices in Baden-Wuerttemberg took part in a patient survey. The quality of chronic illness care from the patients' perspective was assessed by means of the PACIC short form. Furthermore the general satisfaction with care as well as sociodemographic characteristics were determined. For analysis two different groups were regarded: HzV-doctor and HzV-patient with a chronic condition (group 1) and non-HzV-doctor and non-HzV-patient with a chronic condition (group 2). Altogether 2,535 patients were recruited for the survey (response rate 47.8%). Out of these, 836 patients could be assigned to group 1 and 319 patients could be assigned to group 2. Patients in both groups were very satisfied with their care. The patients in group 1 stated more frequently that they received a written treatment plan from their general practitioner and that they were asked about their state of health when leaving the practice. Overall satisfaction was positively associated with organisation of care (β= 0.484), support in difficult situations (β= 0.171) and information on the usefulness of consulting other doctors (β= 0.163) with an explained variation of R(2)=0.459. Irrespective of their group affiliation patients rate the medical care of their chronic condition very positively. Especially the assessment of the quality of care from the perspective of different patient groups (HzV participants and non-HzV participants) could contribute essentially as a feedback for physicians concerning the implementation of the main contents of the HzV for participating physicians.
    01/2013; 107(6):379-85. DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2013.06.001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Directly involving patients and families in care improvement increasingly is viewed as an important component of patient-centered care. To assess the extent to which practices actually involve patients, we surveyed 112 patient-centered medical home practices in twenty-two states. Nearly all of these practices sought patient feedback. However, only 29 percent involved patients and families as advisers and sought feedback through surveys, and only 32 percent involved patients in a continuing role in quality improvement. Interviews showed that practices that highly value patient involvement overcame barriers to ongoing patient participation. We argue that a cultural shift is needed in how practices view patients as partners, not just in areas such as personal responsibility and self-management, but also in quality improvement and governance. Practices must gain more experience and see more examples of the benefits of engaging patients, and they may need more incentives and support for engaging them.
    Health Affairs 02/2013; 32(2):368-75. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1183 · 4.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the extent to which adoption of health information technology (HIT) by physician practices may differ from the extent of use by individual physicians, and to examine factors associated with adoption and use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using cross-sectional survey data from the National Study of Small and Medium-Sized Physician Practices (July 2007-March 2009), we examined the extent to which organizational capabilities and external incentives were associated with the adoption of five key HIT functionalities by physician practices and with use of those functionalities by individual physicians. RESULTS: The rate of physician practices adopting any of the five HIT functionalities was 34.1%. When practices adopted HIT functionalities, on average, about one in seven physicians did not use those functionalities. One physician in five did not use prompts and reminders following adoption by their practice. After controlling for other factors, both adoption of HIT by practices and use of HIT by individual physicians were higher in primary care practices and larger practices. Practices reporting an emphasis on patient-centered management were not more likely than others to adopt, but their physicians were more likely to use HIT. DISCUSSION: Larger practices were most likely to have adopted HIT, but other factors, including specialty mix and self-reported patient-centered management, had a stronger influence on the use of HIT once adopted. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of HIT by practices does not mean that physicians will use the HIT.
    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 02/2013; 20(E1). DOI:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001271 · 3.93 Impact Factor