Recognition as a patient-centered medical home: fundamental or incidental?

PURPOSE: Little is known about reasons why a medical group would seek recognition as a patient-centered medical home (PCMH). We examined the motivations for seeking recognition in one group and assessed why the group allowed recognition to lapse 3 years later. METHODS: As part of a larger mixed methods case study, we conducted 38 key informant interviews with executives, clinicians, and front-line staff. Interviews were conducted according to a guide that evolved during the project and were audio-recorded and fully transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed and thematically coded. RESULTS: PCMH principles were consistent with the organization's culture and mission, which valued innovation and putting patients first. Motivations for implementing specific PCMH components varied; some components were seen as part of the organization's patient-centered culture, whereas others helped the practice compete in its local market. Informants consistently reported that National Committee for Quality Assurance recognition arose incidentally because of a 1-time incentive from a local group of large employers and because the organization decided to allocate some organizational resources to respond to the complex reporting requirements for about one-half of its clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Becoming patient centered and seeking recognition as such ran along separate but parallel tracks within this organization. As the Affordable Care Act continues to focus attention on primary care redesign, this apparent disconnect should be borne in mind.

Overcoming challenges to adoption of shared medical appointments.

Although research has shown many benefits of Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs) or group visits, uptake by physicians has been quite limited. The objective of this study was to explore the facilitators and barriers to implementing SMAs in a large multispecialty medical group. This was a comparative analysis of SMAs at 3 geographically distinct, semiautonomous divisions of the medical group based on qualitative themes identified in audio recorded key informant interviews with medical and administrative staff (n=12) involved with the implementation of SMAs. Data were collected by conducting key informant interviews focusing on the SMA implementation process, including motivations, history, barriers, and facilitators. Uptake at the 3 divisions was predicated by differing motivations, facilitators, and barriers. Divisions 1 and 2 allocated necessary resources including management support, a physician champion, expert consults, and support staff. These divisions also overcame physician reluctance and financial sustainability challenges. Despite early interest, Division 3 did not devote the time or resources to overcome initial resistance. Without the impetus of management mandate or a champion's enthusiasm, early attempts of SMA implementation faltered and were abandoned. In these cases, a physician champion, management support, and financial sustainability were judged to be the primary enablers of successful implementations of SMAs. Without these enablers and other contributing factors, implementing SMAs was challenging.