Article

ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY Small Primary Care Practices Face Four Hurdles-Including A Physician-Centric Mind-Set-In Becoming Medical Homes

Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 11/2012; 31(11):2417-22. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0974
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Transforming small independent practices to patient-centered medical homes is widely believed to be a critical step in reforming the US health care system. Our team has conducted research on improving primary care practices for more than fifteen years. We have found four characteristics of small primary care practices that seriously inhibit their ability to make the transformation to this new care model. We found that small practices were extremely physician-centric, lacked meaningful communication among physicians, were dominated by authoritarian leadership behavior, and were underserved by midlevel clinicians who had been cast into unimaginative roles. Our analysis suggests that in addition to payment reform, a shift in the mind-set of primary care physicians is needed. Unless primary care physicians can adopt new mental models and think in new ways about themselves and their practices, it will be very difficult for them and their practices to create innovative care teams, become learning organizations, and act as good citizens within the health care neighborhood.

1 Follower
 · 
106 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to characterize the proximity of primary care and behavioral health service delivery sites in the United States and factors influencing their colocation. We geocoded the practice addresses of primary care and behavioral health providers found in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Downloadable File to report where colocation is occurring throughout the country. The extent to which primary care physicians are colocated with behavioral health providers is strongly associated with rurality. Specifically, 40.2% of primary care physicians in urban areas are colocated with behavioral health providers compared with 22.8% in isolated rural areas and 26.5% in frontier areas. However, when controlling for number of primary care physicians at a location, the odds of colocation actually are greater for physicians in a frontier area than those in urban areas (odds ratio, 1.289; P < .01). Our findings offer new insights into the overlap of the behavioral health and primary care workforce, where opportunities for integration may be limited because of practice size and the proximity of providers, and where new possibilities for integration exist.
    The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 05/2014; 27(3):367-374. DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2014.03.130260 · 1.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Integrated behavioral health and primary care is emerging as a superior means by which to address the needs of the whole person, but we know neither the extent nor the distribution of integration. Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) Downloadable File, this study reports where colocation exists for (a) primary care providers and any behavioral health provider and (b) primary care providers and psychologists specifically. The NPPES database offers new insights into where opportunities are limited for integration due to workforce shortages or nonproximity of providers and where possibilities exist for colocation, a prerequisite for integration. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    American Psychologist 01/2014; 69(4):443-51. DOI:10.1037/a0036093 · 6.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Efforts to improve primary care diabetes management have assessed strategies across heterogeneous groups of patients and practices. However, there is substantial variability in how well practices implement interventions and achieve desired outcomes. To examine practice contextual features that moderate intervention effectiveness. Secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial of three approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care. Forty small to mid-sized primary care practices participated, with 522 clinician and staff member surveys. Outcomes were assessed for 822 established patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes who had at least one visit to the practice in the 18 months following enrollment. The primary outcome was a composite measure of diabetes process of care, ascertained by chart audit, regarding nine quality measures from the American Diabetes Association Physician Recognition Program: HgA1c, foot exam, blood pressure, dilated eye exam, cholesterol, nephropathy screen, flu shot, nutrition counseling, and self-management support. Data from practices included structural and demographic characteristics and Practice Culture Assessment survey subscales (Change Culture, Work Culture, Chaos). Across the three implementation approaches, demographic/structural characteristics (rural vs. urban + .70(p = .006), +2.44(p < .001), -.75(p = .004)); Medicaid: <20 % vs. ≥20 % (-.20(p = .48), +.75 (p = .08), +.60(p = .02)); practice size: <4 clinicians vs. ≥4 clinicians (+.56(p = .02), +1.96( p < .001), +.02(p = .91)); practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.86(p = .048), +1.71(p = .005), +.34(p = .22)), Work Culture (high vs. low: -.67(p = .18), +2.41(p < .001), +.67(p = .005)) and variability in practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.24(p = .006), -.20(p = .0771), -.44(p = .0019) and Work Culture (high vs. low: +.56(p = .3160), -1.0(p = .008), -.25 (p = .0216) were associated with trajectories of change in diabetes process of care, either directly or differentially by study arm. This study supports the need for broader use of methodological approaches to better examine contextual effects on implementation and effectiveness of quality improvement interventions in primary care settings.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 12/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11606-014-3131-3 · 3.42 Impact Factor