The patient centered medical home. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) describes mechanisms for organizing primary care to provide high quality care across the full range of individuals' health care needs.It is being widely implemented by provider organizations and third party payers. PURPOSE: To describe approaches for PCMH implementation and summarize evidence for effects on patient and staff experiences,process of care, and clinical and economic outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (through 6 December 2011), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through 29 June 2012). STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials and longitudinal observational studies that met criteria for the PCMH, as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and included populations with multiple conditions. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study design, populations, interventions,comparators, financial models, implementation methods,outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by 1 investigator and verified by another. DATA SYNTHESIS: In 19 comparative studies, PCMH interventions had a small positive effect on patient experiences and small to moderate positive effects on the delivery of preventive care services(moderate strength of evidence). Staff experiences were also improved by a small to moderate degree (low strength of evidence).Evidence suggested a reduction in emergency department visits(risk ratio [RR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.98]) but not in hospital admissions (RR, 0.96 [CI, 0.84 to 1.10]) in older adults (low strength of evidence). There was no evidence for overall cost savings. LIMITATION: Systematic review is challenging because of a lack of consistent definitions and nomenclature for PCMH. CONCLUSION: The PCMH holds promise for improving the experiences of patients and staff and potentially for improving care processes,but current evidence is insufficient to determine effects on clinical and most economic outcomes

Updated report on comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and direct renin inhibitors for patients with essential hypertension: much more data, little new information.

OBJECTIVES: A 2007 systematic review compared angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with hypertension. Direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) have since been introduced, and significant new research has been published. We sought to update and expand the 2007 review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (through December 2010) and selected other sources for relevant English-language trials. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: We included studies that directly compared ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and/or DRIs in at least 20 total adults with essential hypertension; had at least 12 weeks of follow-up; and reported at least one outcome of interest. Ninety-seven (97) studies (36 new since 2007) directly comparing ACE inhibitors versus ARBs and three studies directly comparing DRIs to ACE inhibitor inhibitors or ARBs were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: A standard protocol was used to extract data on study design, interventions, population characteristics, and outcomes; evaluate study quality; and summarize the evidence. RESULTS: In spite of substantial new evidence, none of the conclusions from the 2007 review changed. The level of evidence remains high for equivalence between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for blood pressure lowering and use as single antihypertensive agents, as well as for superiority of ARBs for short-term adverse events (primarily cough). However, the new evidence was insufficient on long-term cardiovascular outcomes, quality of life, progression of renal disease, medication adherence or persistence, rates of angioedema, and differences in key patient subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Included studies were limited by follow-up duration, protocol heterogeneity, and infrequent reporting on patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Evidence does not support a meaningful difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for any outcome except medication side effects. Few, if any, of the questions that were not answered in the 2007 report have been addressed by the 36 new studies. Future research in this area should consider areas of uncertainty and be prioritized accordingly.

Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 2: the patient-centered medical home).

OBJECTIVES: As part of the Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science series of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), this systematic review sought to identify completed and ongoing evaluations of the comprehensive patient-centered medical home (PCMH), summarize current evidence for this model, and identify evidence gaps. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed®, CINAHL®, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for published English-language studies, and a wide variety of databases and Web resources to identify ongoing or recently completed studies. REVIEW METHODS: Two investigators per study screened abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, abstracted data, and performed quality ratings and evidence grading. Our functional definition of PCMH was based on the definition used by AHRQ. We included studies that explicitly claimed to be evaluating PCMH and those that did not but which met our functional definition. RESULTS: Seventeen studies with comparison groups evaluated the effects of PCMH (Key Question [KQ] 1). Older adults in the United States were the most commonly studied population (8 of 17 studies). PCMH interventions had a small positive impact on patient experiences (including patient-perceived care coordination) and small to moderate positive effects on preventive care services (moderate strength of evidence [SOE]). Staff experiences were also improved by a small to moderate degree (low SOE). There were too few studies to estimate effects on clinical or most economic outcomes. Twenty-one of 27 studies reported approaches that addressed all 7 major PCMH components (KQ 2), including team-based care, sustained partnership, reorganized care or structural changes to care, enhanced access, coordinated care, comprehensive care, and a systems-based approach to quality. A total of 51 strategies were used to address the 7 major PCMH components. Twenty-two of 27 studies reported information on financial systems used to implement PCMH, implementation strategies, and/or organizational learning strategies for implementing PCMH (KQ 3). The 31 studies identified in the horizon scan of ongoing PCMH studies (KQ 4) were broadly representative of the U.S. health care system, both in geography and in the complexity of private and public health care payers and delivery networks. CONCLUSIONS: Published studies of PCMH interventions often have similar broad elements, but precise components of care varied widely. The PCMH holds promise for improving the experiences of patients and staff, and potentially for improving care processes. However, current evidence is insufficient to determine effects on clinical and most economic outcomes. Ongoing studies identified through the horizon scan have potential to greatly expand the evidence base relating to PCMH.