Medical Homes: "Where You Stand on Definitions Depends on Where You Sit"

Texas A&M Health Science Center, School of Rural Public Health, Department of Health Policy & Management, Center for Health Organization Transformation, College Station, TX 77842, USA. .
Medical Care Research and Review (Impact Factor: 2.57). 05/2010; 67(4):393-411. DOI: 10.1177/1077558710367794
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The medical home is a potentially transformative strategy to address issues of access, quality, and efficiency in the delivery of health care in the United States. While numerous organizations support a physician-driven definition, it is by no means the universally accepted definition. Several professional groups, payers, and researchers have offered differing, or nuanced, definitions of medical homes. This lack of consensus has contributed to uncertainty among providers about the medical home. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the medical home and identified 29 professional, government, and academic sources offering definitions. While consensus appears to exist around a core of selected features, the medical home means different things to different people. The variation in definitions can be partly explained by the obligation of organizations to their members and whether the focus is on the patient or provider. Differences in definitions have implications at both the policy and practice levels.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a strong push in the United States to evaluate whether the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model produces desired results. The explanatory and contextually based questions of how and why PCMH succeeds in different practice settings are often neglected. We report the development of a comprehensive, mixed qualitative-quantitative evaluation set for researchers, policy makers, and clinician groups. To develop an evaluation set, the Brown Primary Care Transformation Initiative convened a multidisciplinary group of PCMH experts, reviewed the PCMH literature and evaluation strategies, developed key domains for evaluation, and selected or created methods and measures for inclusion. The measures and methods in the evaluation set (survey instruments, PCMH meta-measures, patient outcomes, quality measures, qualitative interviews, participant observation, and process evaluation) are meant to be used together. PCMH evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to assess and explain both the context of transformation in different primary care practices and the experiences of diverse stakeholders. In addition to commonly assessed patient outcomes, quality, and cost, it is critical to include PCMH components integral to practice culture transformation: patient and family centeredness, authentic patient activation, mutual trust among practice employees and patients, and transparency, joy, and collaboration in delivering and receiving care in a changing environment. This evaluation set offers a comprehensive methodology to enable understanding of how PCMH transformation occurs in different practice settings. This approach can foster insights about how transformation affects critical outcomes to achieve meaningful, patient-centered, high-quality, and cost-effective sustainable change among diverse primary care practices. © 2015 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.
    The Annals of Family Medicine 03/2015; 13(2):168-75. DOI:10.1370/afm.1765 · 4.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a strategy to transform primary care delivery organizations. However, PCMHs take on many forms and can "look different." To better understand the activities of organizations undertaking this strategy, we sought to identify discernible PCMH types using cluster analyses. From a sample of level 3 National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMHs, We extracted 3 types of PCMHs: information-focused, efficiency-focused, and high-scoring. Our findings confirm that the PCMH is not a uniform intervention. Characterizing PCMHs with particular areas of focus has implications for understanding the transformation process, identifying areas for continued practice development, and advancing evaluation of this organizational model.
    The Journal of ambulatory care management 04/2015; 38(2):144-52. DOI:10.1097/JAC.0000000000000064
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We investigated ways that patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are currently using health information technology (IT) for care coordination and what types of health IT are needed to improve care coordination. A multi-disciplinary team of researchers conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 28 participants from 3 PCMHs in the United States. Participants included administrators and clinicians from PCMHs, electronic health record (EHR) and health information exchange (HIE) representatives, and policy makers. Participants identified multiple barriers to care coordination using current health IT tools. We identified five areas in which health IT can improve care coordination in PCMHs: 1) monitoring patient populations, 2) notifying clinicians and other staff when specific patients move across care settings, 3) collaborating around patients, 4) reporting activities, and 5) interoperability. To accomplish these tasks, many participants described using homegrown care coordination systems separate from EHRs. The participants in this study have resources, experience, and expertise with using health IT for care coordination, yet they still identified multiple areas for improvement. We hypothesize that focusing health IT development in the five areas we identified can enable more effective care coordination. Key findings from this work are that homegrown systems apart from EHRs are currently used to support care coordination and, also, that reporting tools are key components of care coordination. New health IT that enables monitoring, notifying, collaborating, reporting, and interoperability would enhance care coordination within PCMHs beyond what current health IT enables. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email:
    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 03/2015; DOI:10.1093/jamia/ocu039 · 3.93 Impact Factor