Maximizing the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) by Choosing Words Wisely.

BACKGROUND: Culture is transmitted through language and reflects a group's values, yet much of the current language used to describe the new patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a carryover from the traditional, physician-centric model of care. This language creates a subtle yet powerful force that can perpetuate the status quo, despite transformation efforts. This article describes new terminology that some innovative primary care practices are using to support the transformational culture of the PCMH. METHODS: Data come from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded Working Conference for PCMH Innovation 2013, which convened 10 innovative practices and interdisciplinary content experts to discuss innovative practice redesign. Session and interview transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach to identify patterns and explore their significance. RESULTS: Language innovations are used by 5 practices. Carefully selected terms facilitate creative reimagining of traditional roles and spaces through connotations that highlight practice goals. Participants felt that the language used was important for reinforcing substantive changes. CONCLUSIONS: Reworking well-established vernacular requires openness to change. True transformation does not, however, occur through a simple relabeling of old concepts. New terminology must represent values to which practices genuinely aspire, although caution is advised when using language to support cultural and clinical change.

Implementation of point-of-care testing in an ambulatory practice of an academic medical center.

OBJECTIVES: Point-of-care laboratory testing (POCT) offers reduced turnaround time and may promote improved operational efficiency. Few studies have been reported that document improvements from implementing POCT in primary care. METHODS: We measured metrics of practice efficiency in a primary care practice before and after implementation of POCT, including the total number of tests ordered, letters and phone calls to patients, and revisits due to abnormal test results. We performed a cost and revenue analysis. RESULTS: Following implementation of POCT, there was a 21% decrease in tests ordered per patient (P < .0001); a decrease in follow-up phone calls and letters by 89% and 85%, respectively (P < .0001 and P < .0001); and a 61% decrease in patient revisits (P = .0002). Estimated testing revenues exceeded expenses by $6.62 per patient, and potential cost savings from improved efficiency were $24.64 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: POCT can significantly improve clinical operations with cost reductions through improved practice efficiency.