Patient-Centered Medical Home Implementation and Improved Chronic Disease Quality: A Longitudinal Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between clinics' extent of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation and improvements in chronic illness care quality. DATA SOURCE: Data from 808 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) primary care clinics nationwide implementing the Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) PCMH initiative, begun in 2010. DESIGN: Clinic-level longitudinal observational study of clinics that received training and resources to implement PACT. Clinics varied in the extent they had PACT components in place by 2012. DATA COLLECTION: Clinical care quality measures reflecting intermediate outcomes and care processes related to coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes, and hypertension care were collected by manual chart review at each VHA facility from 2009 to 2013. FINDINGS: In adjusted models containing 808 clinics, the 77 clinics with the most PACT components in place had significantly larger improvements in five of seven chronic disease intermediate outcome measures (e.g., BP < 160/100 in diabetes), ranging from 1.3 percent to 5.2 percent of the patient population meeting measures, and two of eight process measures (HbA1c measurement, LDL measurement in CAD) than the 69 clinics with the least PACT components. Clinics with moderate levels of PACT components showed few significantly larger improvements than the lowest PACT clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics with the most PCMH components in place in 2012 had greater improvements in several chronic disease quality measures in 2009-2013 than the lowest PCMH clinics.

Approaches to comparative effectiveness research in multimorbid populations.

There is an urgent need for an evidence base to guide care for patients with multiple chronic medical conditions (MCC). Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been touted as 1 solution to generating such evidence. However, the majority of CER topics and methods are designed to generate evidence applicable to single diseases. Generating evidence to guide the care of MCC populations requires thoughtful, and often alternative, approaches to using the existing armamentarium of CER methods. To initiate a dialog about appropriate methods for CER in MCC populations, we discuss advantages and disadvantages of experimental and quasi-experimental study designs for CER in MCC populations, estimating heterogeneity of treatment effects, developing meaningful outcome measures, and aligning morbidity measurement with relevant outcomes. Through an engaged dialog with clinicians, methodologists, and patients, evidence about strengths and limitations of alternative approaches, recommendations about preferred methods for CER in MCC can be developed to ensure that knowledge gaps are filled by valid evidence.