{"title":"Tools to Gauge Progress During Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation.","authors":"Denise D Quigley, Zachary S Predmore, Ron D Hays","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review tools designed to evaluate and improve the extent of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Literature search and review of tools to evaluate PCMH \"medical homeness\" and track progress toward practice transformation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a literature search to identify tools designed for evaluation and quality improvement during the PCMH change process. We identified and reviewed the content of 5 publicly available PCMH survey tools used by an administrator or clinical lead to collect data at the practice level for evaluation and/or quality improvement during PCMH implementation. We assessed each tool's coverage of PCMH content, standards, and requirements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that 3 tools (Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment [PCMH-A], Primary Care Assessment Tool-Facility Edition, and Medical Home Care Coordination Survey-Healthcare Team [MHCCS-H]) are actionable for quality improvement. PCMH-A assesses the broadest array of practice capabilities and includes items pertaining to all National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH standards. MHCCS-H was the only tool to contain items on comprehensiveness of care. There was variation in emphasis on main domains, with some content areas covered by only 1 tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is currently little evidence on which PCMH tools are associated with improved quality outcomes, as relatively few longitudinal studies have been conducted. Of the 5 tools we reviewed, only PCMH-A and MHCCS-H impose a light administrative burden (less than 10 minutes to complete) and can identify specific actions to improve a given practice capability. Each tool is lacking in a particular content area: PCMH-A, for example, lacks items on comprehensiveness of care, whereas MHCCS-H lacks items addressing access to care.</p>","PeriodicalId":72160,"journal":{"name":"American journal of accountable care","volume":"5 4","pages":"e8-e18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11113621/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of accountable care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To review tools designed to evaluate and improve the extent of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation.
Study design: Literature search and review of tools to evaluate PCMH "medical homeness" and track progress toward practice transformation.
Methods: We conducted a literature search to identify tools designed for evaluation and quality improvement during the PCMH change process. We identified and reviewed the content of 5 publicly available PCMH survey tools used by an administrator or clinical lead to collect data at the practice level for evaluation and/or quality improvement during PCMH implementation. We assessed each tool's coverage of PCMH content, standards, and requirements.
Results: We found that 3 tools (Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment [PCMH-A], Primary Care Assessment Tool-Facility Edition, and Medical Home Care Coordination Survey-Healthcare Team [MHCCS-H]) are actionable for quality improvement. PCMH-A assesses the broadest array of practice capabilities and includes items pertaining to all National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH standards. MHCCS-H was the only tool to contain items on comprehensiveness of care. There was variation in emphasis on main domains, with some content areas covered by only 1 tool.
Conclusions: There is currently little evidence on which PCMH tools are associated with improved quality outcomes, as relatively few longitudinal studies have been conducted. Of the 5 tools we reviewed, only PCMH-A and MHCCS-H impose a light administrative burden (less than 10 minutes to complete) and can identify specific actions to improve a given practice capability. Each tool is lacking in a particular content area: PCMH-A, for example, lacks items on comprehensiveness of care, whereas MHCCS-H lacks items addressing access to care.