Storylines of family medicine III: core principles-primary care, systems and family.

Storylines of Family Medicine is a 12-part series of thematically linked mini-essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine, as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'III: core principles-primary care, systems, and family', authors address the following themes: 'Continuity of care-building therapeutic relationships over time', 'Comprehensiveness-combining breadth and depth of scope', 'Coordination of care-managing multiple realities', 'Access to care-intersectional, systemic, and personal', 'Systems theory-a core value in patient-centered care', 'Family-oriented practice-supporting patients' health and well-being', 'Family physician as family member' and 'Family in the exam room'. May readers develop new understandings from these essays.

The Impact of Interpersonal Continuity of Primary Care on Health Care Costs and Use: A Critical Review.

PURPOSE: Interpersonal continuity has been shown to play an essential role in primary care's salutary effects. Amid 2 decades of rapid evolution in the health care payment model, we sought to summarize the range of peer-reviewed literature relating continuity to health care costs and use, information critical to assessing the need for continuity measurement in value-based payment design. METHODS: After comprehensively reviewing prior continuity literature, we used a combination of established medical subject headings (MeSH) and key words to search PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles published between 2002 and 2022 on "continuity of care" and "continuity of patient care," and payor-relevant outcomes, including cost of care, health care costs, cost of health care, total cost of care, utilization, ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, and hospitalizations for these conditions. We limited our search to primary care key words, MeSH terms, and other controlled vocabulary, including primary care, primary health care, family medicine, family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine. RESULTS: Our search yielded 83 articles describing studies that were published between 2002 and 2022. Of these, 18 studies having a total of 18 unique outcomes examined the association between continuity and health care costs, and 79 studies having a total of 142 unique outcomes assessed the association between continuity and health care use. Interpersonal continuity was associated with significantly lower costs or more favorable use for 109 of the 160 outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Interpersonal continuity today remains significantly associated with lower health care costs and more appropriate use. Further research is needed to disaggregate these associations at the clinician, team, practice, and system levels, but continuity assessment is clearly important to designing value-based payment for primary care.

Measuring Outcomes: Lessons From the World of Public Education.

The quality and efficiency of American health care are increasingly measured using clinical and financial data with a goal of improving clinical practice. Proponents believe such efforts can improve outcomes, motivate clinicians, and inform the public about quality. Detractors point to problems with the accuracy of these measures and the risk of creating perverse incentives for both physicians and patients. Drawing on lessons from similar performance management policies in public education, we provide guidance about this trend for primary care physicians and health care policy makers. We argue that public school teacher evaluations that use value-added modeling foretell specific pitfalls for the use of similar models to evaluate physician effectiveness, and that unintended consequences of performance management in both education and health care can include the narrowing of purpose, deprofessionalization, and a loss of local/community control.

Envisioning a New Health Care System for America.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Between August 2013 and April 2014, eight family medicine organizations convened to develop a strategic plan and communication strategy for how our discipline might partner with patients and communities to build a new foundation for American health care. An outline of this initiative, Family Medicine for America's Health (FMAHealth), was formally announced to the public in October 2014. The purpose of this paper and the five papers to follow is to describe the guiding principles of FMAHealth in greater detail. FMAHealth is taking place at a pivotal point in the history of American health care, when the deficiencies of our overly expensive, underperforming health care delivery system are becoming more apparent than ever. By forming strategic partnerships to implement this initiative, family medicine seeks to define a new approach to health system leadership, care delivery, education, and research. This will require substantial reorientation of existing priorities and reimbursement systems, which are focused on delivering services, instead of on improving health. Family medicine is committed to engaging and empowering patients, their families and communities, and other health care professionals to establish a more equitable, effective, and efficient delivery system--a system in which health is the primary design element and the "Triple Aim" is the guiding principle.

A New Foundation for the Delivery and Financing of American Health Care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: For the past decade, primary care practices across America have worked to implement a practice model called the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) to revitalize practice, better support clinicians and patients, improve efficiency, and facilitate growth in primary care capacity. In spite of substantial progress, this work has not been matched by sufficient change in the payment system to allow these goals to be accomplished. Nevertheless, improving the quality and availability of primary care remains essential to achieving the goals of the Triple Aim (better health care, better population health, and containment of health care costs). For this to occur, the PCMH model of care must be further refined, and the payment system for primary care must be completely restructured. The need for these changes is urgent. In October 2014, the discipline of family medicine announced a comprehensive strategic plan called Family Medicine for America's Health (FMAHealth). FMAHealth proposes to expand the PCMH care model by fully integrating our nation's behavioral/mental health, public health, and primary care systems to create a new foundation for American health care. Accomplishing these ambitious goals will require a broad coalition of private and public interests across the health care disciplines as well as patients, communities, government, and businesses. These changes require additional infrastructure that existing financing systems do not adequately support, so comprehensive payment reform is essential for large-scale dissemination and sustainability of this model. The new payment model must reward value rather than volume of service and must provide a secure financial foundation for practices designed to care for patients and communities at affordable costs.

Health is primary: Family medicine for America's health.

PURPOSE: More than a decade ago the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, American Board of Family Medicine, Association of Departments of Family Medicine, Association of Family Practice Residency Directors, North American Primary Care Research Group, and Society of Teachers of Family Medicine came together in the Future of Family Medicine (FFM) to launch a series of strategic efforts to "renew the specialty to meet the needs of people and society," some of which bore important fruit. Family Medicine for America's Health was launched in 2013 to revisit the role of family medicine in view of these changes and to position family medicine with new strategic and communication plans to create better health, better health care, and lower cost for patients and communities (the Triple Aim). METHODS: Family Medicine for America's Health was preceded and guided by the development of a family physician role definition. A consulting group facilitated systematic strategic plan development over 9 months that included key informant interviews, formal stakeholder surveys, future scenario testing, a retreat for family medicine organizations and stakeholder representatives to review strategy options, further strategy refinement, and finally a formal strategic plan with draft tactics and design for an implementation plan. A second communications consulting group surveyed diverse stakeholders in coordination with strategic planning to develop a communication plan. The American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians joined the effort, and students, residents, and young physicians were included. RESULTS: The core strategies identified include working to ensure broad access to sustained, primary care relationships; accountability for increasing primary care value in terms of cost and quality; a commitment to helping reduce health care disparities; moving to comprehensive payment and away from fee-for-service; transformation of training; technology to support effective care; improving research underpinning primary care; and actively engaging patients, policy makers, and payers to develop an understanding of the value of primary care. The communications plan, called Health is Primary, will complement these strategies. Eight family medicine organizations have pledged nearly $20 million and committed representatives to a multiyear implementation team that will coordinate these plans in a much more systematic way than occurred with FFM. CONCLUSIONS: Family Medicine for America's Health is a new commitment by 8 family medicine organizations to strategically align work to improve practice models, payment, technology, workforce and education, and research to support the Triple Aim. It is also a humble invitation to patients and to clinical and policy partners to collaborate in making family medicine even more effective.

Measuring family physician identity: the development of a new instrument.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe the development and psychometric assessment of an instrument designed to assess family medicine identity in residency training sites and compare responses from physician faculty and residents. METHODS: We conducted 28 focus groups between 2007--2008, 14 with faculty and 14 with residents who were part of the Preparing Personal Physicians for Practice (P4) Project. The first 22 focus groups were exploratory, and the second six were confirmatory where we shared working variable statements scored using a 5-point Likert scale. We then administered the survey to 223 faculty and 147 residents who were part of the P4 Project, followed by a principal component (factor) analysis, retaining items that reflected domains with eigenvalues higher than 1.0. RESULTS: A total of 223 family physician faculty and 147 residents completed the identity survey. The item analysis extraction loadings ranged from 0.36 to 0.70. Based on item grouping patterns, five domains were reflected in the data: Patient/Family Relationships, Patient Advocacy, Career Flexibility, Balancing the Breadth and Depth in Practice, and Comprehensive Nature of Patient Care. Compared to residents, faculty conveyed stronger agreement about being comfortable balancing the breadth and depth of medical knowledge needed in practice and using a variety of approaches to supplement their medical knowledge about patient care compared to residents (90.6% versus 68.7% for breadth and depth, 95.9% versus 88.3 for using a variety of approaches). Compared to faculty, residents agreed more strongly that the ability to choose many options in how to build their practice appeals to them compared to faculty (89.1% versus 82.9%). CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed and tested a survey designed to measure family medicine identity in residencies, with five domains. Survey item responses were different between residents and faculty, which indicates the instrument may be sensitive to important changes over time.

Primary care technicians: a solution to the primary care workforce gap.

Efforts to close the primary care workforce gap typically employ one of three basic strategies: train more primary care physicians; boost the supply of nurse practitioners or physician assistants, or both; or use community health workers to extend the reach of primary care physicians. In this article we briefly review each strategy and the barriers to its success. We then propose a new approach adapted from the widely accepted model of emergency medical services. Translating this model to primary care and leveraging the capabilities of modern health information technology, it should be possible to create primary care technicians who can dramatically expand the impact and reach of patient-centered medical homes by providing basic preventive, minor illness, and stable chronic disease care in rural and resource-deprived communities.

Provider practice characteristics that promote interpersonal continuity.

PURPOSE: Becoming certified as a patient-centered medical home now requires practices to measure how effectively they provide continuity of care. To understand how continuity can be improved, we studied the association between provider practice characteristics and interpersonal continuity using the Usual Provider Continuity Index (UPC). METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study of the relationship between provider practice characteristics and UPC in 4 university-based family medicine clinics. For the quantitative part of the study, we analyzed data extracted from monthly provider performance reports for 63 primary care providers (PCPs) between July 2009 and June 2010. We tested the association of 5 practice parameters on UPC: (1) clinic frequency; (2) panel size; (3) patient load (ratio of panel size to clinic frequency); (4) attendance ratio; and (5) duration in practice (number of years working in the current practice). Clinic, care team, provider sex, and provider type (physicians versus nonphysician providers) were analyzed as covariates. Simple and multiple linear regressions were used for statistical modeling. Findings from the quantitative part of the study were validated using qualitative data from provider focus groups that were analyzed using sequential thematic coding. RESULTS: There were strong linear associations between UPC and both clinic frequency (ß = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.62-1.27) and patient load (ß = -0.37; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.26). A multiple linear regression including clinic frequency, patient load, duration in practice, and provider type explained more than 60% of the variation in UPC (adjusted R(2) = 0.629). UPC for nurse practitioners and physician assistants was more strongly dependent on clinic frequency and was at least as high as it was for physicians. Focus groups identified 6 themes as other potential sources of variability in UPC. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in UPC between providers is strongly correlated with variables that can be modified by practice managers. Our study suggests that patients assigned to nurse practitioners and physician assistants have continuity similar to those assigned to physicians.

Defining the medical home: the Oregon experience.

OBJECTIVE: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is emerging as a key strategy to improve health outcomes, reduce total costs, and strengthen primary care, but a myriad of operational measures of the PCMH have emerged. In 2009, the state of Oregon convened a public, legislatively mandated committee charged with developing PCMH measures. We report on the process of, outcomes of, and lessons learned by this committee. METHODS: The Oregon PCMH advisory committee was appointed by the director of the Oregon Department of Human Services and held 7 public meetings between October 2009 and February 2010. The committee engaged a diverse group of Oregon stakeholders, including a variety of practicing primary care physicians. RESULTS: The committee developed a PCMH measurement framework, including 6 core attributes, 15 standards, and 27 individual measures. Key successes of the committee's work were to describe PCMH core attributes and functions in patient-centered language and to achieve consensus among a diverse group of stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Oregon's PCMH advisory committee engaged local stakeholders in a process that resulted in a shared PCMH measurement framework and addressed stakeholders' concerns. The state of Oregon now has implemented a PCMH program using the framework developed by the PCMH advisory committee. The Oregon experience demonstrates that a brief public process can be successful in producing meaningful consensus on PCMH roles and functions and advancing PCMH policy.

Assessing the impact of innovative training of family physicians for the patient-centered medical home.

BACKGROUND: New approaches to enhance access in primary care necessitate change in the model for residency education. PURPOSE: To describe instrument design, development and testing, and data collection strategies for residency programs, continuity clinics, residents, and program graduates participating in the Preparing the Personal Physician for Practice (P(4)) project. METHODS: We developed and pilot-tested surveys to assess demographic characteristics of residents, clinical and operational features of the continuity clinics and educational programs, and attitudes about and implementation status of Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) characteristics. Surveys were administered annually to P(4) residency programs since the project started in 2007. Descriptive statistics were used to profile data from the P(4) baseline year. RESULTS: Most P(4) residents were non-Hispanic white women (60.7%), married or partnered, attended medical school in the United States and were the first physicians in their families to attend medical school. Nearly 85% of residency continuity clinics were family health centers, and about 8% were federally qualified health centers. The most likely PCMH features in continuity clinics were having an electronic health record and having fully secure remote access available; both of which were found in more than 50% of continuity clinics. Approximately one-half of continuity clinics used the electronic health record for safety projects, and nearly 60% used it for quality-improvement projects. CONCLUSIONS: We created a collaborative evaluation model in all 14 P(4) residencies. Successful implementation of new surveys revealed important baseline features of residencies and residents that are pertinent to studying the effects of new training models for the PCMH.

Preparing the personal physician for practice (p4): site-specific innovations, hypotheses, and measures at baseline.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study's purpose was to describe the innovations, hypotheses being tested, and measures used in residency training redesign in 14 family medicine residencies associated with the P4 project. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of site visit reports to identify and categorize the curricular innovations that are part of the P4 Project. Similarly, we cataloged specific hypotheses to be tested and both site-specific measures and core measures collected by the evaluation team to assess hypotheses. RESULTS: Selected P4 programs include three university-based programs; three community-based, university-administered programs, and eight community-based, university-affiliated programs. These 14 programs had 24 continuity clinics, and 334 residents were enrolled in the baseline cohort (2006--2007). Between two and five innovations were proposed by programs in the baseline period linked to 70 planned hypotheses, with a range of three to seven hypotheses (mean of 4.5). Seven programs (50%) focused on Patient-centered Medical Home practice redesign, and seven (50%) assessed different aspects of a 4-year curriculum as the two most common innovations. Team-based care and team training were tested in six programs, and five tested an individualized curriculum tailored to each resident. Eight programs submitted 11 grants, and six programs were successful in obtaining funding to support P4 activities. The sources of funding primarily included the Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, and local foundations, and the mean number of dollars attained was $659,528 (range=$50,000--$2,500,000). Seven grants were received through local sources, totaling $3,219,884 with an average of $459,983 per program. CONCLUSIONS: The P4 project had a successful launch and to date has retained all 14 programs that started in 2007. Though no direct funding was provided by P4 to individual sites, all have focused on important contemporary challenges for training excellent family physicians, all are engaged in important evaluations, and nearly half have successfully obtained project funding to support their specific P4 activities during the baseline period.