在 "以患者为中心的医疗之家 "转型过程中衡量进展的工具。

American journal of accountable care Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2017-12-15
Denise D Quigley, Zachary S Predmore, Ron D Hays
{"title":"在 \"以患者为中心的医疗之家 \"转型过程中衡量进展的工具。","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":null,"pages":null},"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":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

研究目的回顾旨在评估和改进以患者为中心的医疗之家 (PCMH) 实施程度的工具:方法: 我们进行了文献检索,并对用于评估 PCMH "医疗之家 "和跟踪实践转型进展的工具进行了回顾:我们进行了文献检索,以确定在 PCMH 改革过程中用于评估和质量改进的工具。我们确定并审查了 5 种公开可用的 PCMH 调查工具的内容,这些工具由管理者或临床负责人在 PCMH 实施过程中用于收集实践层面的数据,以进行评估和/或质量改进。我们评估了每种工具对 PCMH 内容、标准和要求的覆盖范围:结果:我们发现 3 种工具(以患者为中心的医疗之家评估 [PCMH-A]、初级医疗评估工具-设施版和医疗之家护理协调调查-医疗团队 [MHCCS-H])可用于质量改进。PCMH-A 评估了最广泛的实践能力,包括与国家质量保证委员会 PCMH 标准相关的所有项目。MHCCS-H 是唯一包含全面护理项目的工具。主要领域的侧重点有所不同,有些内容领域只有一种工具涵盖:结论:由于纵向研究相对较少,目前几乎没有证据表明哪些 PCMH 工具与质量结果的改善有关。在我们审查的 5 种工具中,只有 PCMH-A 和 MHCCS-H 所带来的管理负担较轻(完成时间少于 10 分钟),并能确定提高特定实践能力的具体行动。每种工具都在特定内容领域有所欠缺:例如,PCMH-A 缺乏有关护理全面性的项目,而 MHCCS-H 则缺乏有关获得护理的项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tools to Gauge Progress During Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信