Practice context affects efforts to improve diabetes care for primary care patients: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve primary care diabetes management have assessed strategies across heterogeneous groups of patients and practices. However, there is substantial variability in how well practices implement interventions and achieve desired outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine practice contextual features that moderate intervention effectiveness. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial of three approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care. PARTICIPANTS: Forty small to mid-sized primary care practices participated, with 522 clinician and staff member surveys. Outcomes were assessed for 822 established patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes who had at least one visit to the practice in the 18 months following enrollment. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite measure of diabetes process of care, ascertained by chart audit, regarding nine quality measures from the American Diabetes Association Physician Recognition Program: HgA1c, foot exam, blood pressure, dilated eye exam, cholesterol, nephropathy screen, flu shot, nutrition counseling, and self-management support. Data from practices included structural and demographic characteristics and Practice Culture Assessment survey subscales (Change Culture, Work Culture, Chaos). KEY RESULTS: Across the three implementation approaches, demographic/structural characteristics (rural vs. urban + .70(p = .006), +2.44(p < .001), -.75(p = .004)); Medicaid: < 20 % vs. ≥ 20 % (-.20(p = .48), +.75 (p = .08), +.60(p = .02)); practice size: < 4 clinicians vs. ≥ 4 clinicians (+.56(p = .02), +1.96(p < .001), +.02(p = .91)); practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.86(p = .048), +1.71(p = .005), +.34(p = .22)), Work Culture (high vs. low: -.67(p = .18), +2.41(p < .001), +.67(p = .005)) and variability in practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.24(p = .006), -.20(p = .0771), -.44(p = .0019) and Work Culture (high vs. low: +.56(p = .3160), -1.0(p = .008), -.25 (p = .0216) were associated with trajectories of change in diabetes process of care, either directly or differentially by study arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the need for broader use of methodological approaches to better examine contextual effects on implementation and effectiveness of quality improvement interventions in primary care settings.

Coaching strategies for enhancing practice transformation.

BACKGROUND: Current research on primary care practice redesign suggests that outside facilitation can be an important source of support for achieving substantial change. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the specific sequence of strategies used by a successful practice facilitator during the American Academy of Family Physicians' (AAFP) National Demonstration Project (NDP). METHODS: This secondary analysis describes a sequence of strategies used to produce change in family medicine practices attempting to adopt a new model of care. The authors analysed qualitative data generated by one facilitator and six practices by coding facilitator field notes, site visit reports, qualitative summaries, depth interviews and email strings. RESULTS: The facilitator utilized practice member coaching in addition to consulting, negotiating and connecting approaches. Coaching strategies encouraged: (i) expansive, multi-directional, attentive styles of communication; (ii) solving practical problems together; (iii) modelling facilitative leadership and (iv) encouraging an expanded vision of care. Practice members who received consistent coaching reported internal shifts and new ways of conceptualizing work, not just success at implementing model components. They indicated that their facilitator had helped them think and behave in new ways while helping them achieve benchmarks. CONCLUSIONS: It was once believed that the transition from traditional models of family medicine practice to new models of care meant implementing new technological components, suggesting that outside facilitators should act as technological and care delivery consultants. However, coaches may be especially useful in helpful in practices undertake substantial changes.

Metrics for assessing improvements in primary health care.

Metrics focus attention on what is important. Balanced metrics of primary health care inform purpose and aspiration as well as performance. Purpose in primary health care is about improving the health of people and populations in their community contexts. It is informed by metrics that include long-term, meaning- and relationship-focused perspectives. Aspirational uses of metrics inspire evolving insights and iterative improvement, using a collaborative, developmental perspective. Performance metrics assess the complex interactions among primary care tenets of accessibility, a whole-person focus, integration and coordination of care, and ongoing relationships with individuals, families, and communities; primary health care principles of inclusion and equity, a focus on people's needs, multilevel integration of health, collaborative policy dialogue, and stakeholder participation; basic and goal-directed health care, prioritization, development, and multilevel health outcomes. Environments that support reflection, development, and collaborative action are necessary for metrics to advance health and minimize unintended consequences.

A typology of primary care workforce innovations in the United States since 2000.

PURPOSE: Innovative workforce models are being developed and implemented to meet the changing demands of primary care. A literature review was conducted to construct a typology of workforce models used by primary care practices. METHODS: Ovid Medline, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were used to identify published descriptions of the primary care workforce that deviated from what would be expected in the typical practice in the year 2000. Expert consultants identified additional articles that would not show up in a regular computerized search. Full texts of relevant articles were read and matrices for sorting articles were developed. Each article was reviewed and assigned to one of 18 cells in the matrices. Articles within each cell were then read again to identify patterns and develop an understanding of the full spectrum of workforce innovation within each category. RESULTS: This synthesis led to the development of a typology of workforce innovations represented in the literature. Many workforce innovations added personnel to existing practices, whereas others sought to retrain existing personnel or even develop roles outside the traditional practice. Most of these sought to minimize the impact on the existing practice roles and functions, particularly that of physicians. The synthesis also identified recent innovations which attempted to fundamentally transform the existing practice, with transformation being defined as a change in practice members' governing variables or values in regard to their workforce role. CONCLUSIONS: Most conceptualizations of the primary care workforce described in the literature do not reflect the level of innovation needed to meet the needs of the burgeoning numbers of patients with complex health issues, the necessity for roles and identities of physicians to change, and the call for fundamentally redesigned practices. However, we identified 5 key workforce innovation concepts that emerged from the literature: team care, population focus, additional resource support, creating workforce connections, and role change.

Practice facilitation to improve diabetes care in primary care: a report from the EPIC randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: We investigated 3 approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care: (1) practice facilitation over 6 months using a reflective adaptive process (RAP) approach; (2) practice facilitation for up to 18 months using a continuous quality improvement (CQI) approach; and (3) providing self-directed (SD) practices with model information and resources, without facilitation. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial, called Enhancing Practice, Improving Care (EPIC), that compared these approaches among 40 small to midsized primary care practices. At baseline and 9 months and 18 months after enrollment, we assessed practice diabetes quality measures from chart audits and Practice Culture Assessment scores from clinician and staff surveys. RESULTS: Although measures of the quality of diabetes care improved in all 3 groups (all P <.05), improvement was greater in CQI practices compared with both SD practices (P <.0001) and RAP practices (P <.0001); additionally, improvement was greater in SD practices compared with RAP practices (P <.05). In RAP practices, Change Culture scores showed a trend toward improvement at 9 months (P = .07) but decreased below baseline at 18 months (P <.05), while Work Culture scores decreased from 9 to 18 months (P <.05). Both scores were stable over time in SD and CQI practices. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional CQI interventions are effective at improving measures of the quality of diabetes care, but may not improve practice change and work culture. Short-term practice facilitation based on RAP principles produced less improvement in quality measures than CQI or SD interventions and also did not produce sustained improvements in practice culture.

A qualitative comparison of primary care clinicians' and their patients' perspectives on achieving depression care: implications for improving outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Improving the patient experience of primary care is a stated focus of efforts to transform primary care practices into "Patient-centered Medical Homes" (PCMH) in the United States, yet understanding and promoting what defines a positive experience from the patient's perspective has been de-emphasized relative to the development of technological and communication infrastructure at the PCMH. The objective of this qualitative study was to compare primary care clinicians' and their patients' perceptions of the patients' experiences, expectations and preferences as they try to achieve care for depression. METHODS: We interviewed 6 primary care clinicians along with 30 of their patients with a history of depressive disorder attending 4 small to medium-sized primary care practices from rural and urban settings. RESULTS: Three processes on the way to satisfactory depression care emerged: 1. a journey, often from fractured to connected care; 2. a search for a personal understanding of their depression; 3. creation of unique therapeutic spaces for treating current depression and preventing future episodes. Relative to patients' observations regarding stigma's effects on accepting a depression diagnosis and seeking treatment, clinicians tended to underestimate the presence and effects of stigma. Patients preferred clinicians who were empathetic listeners, while clinicians worried that discussing depression could open "Pandora's box" of lengthy discussions and set them irrecoverably behind in their clinic schedules. Clinicians and patients agreed that somatic manifestations of mental distress impeded the patients' ability to understand their suffering as depression. Clinicians reported supporting several treatment modalities beyond guideline-based approaches for depression, yet also displayed surface-level understanding of the often multifaceted support webs their patient described. CONCLUSIONS: Improving processes and outcomes in primary care may demand heightened ability to understand and measure the patients' experiences, expectations and preferences as they receive primary care. Future research would investigate a potential mismatch between clinicians' and patients' perceptions of the effects of stigma on achieving care for depression, and on whether time spent discussing depression during the clinical visit improves outcomes. Improving care and outcomes for chronic disorders such as depression may require primary care clinicians to understand and support their patients' unique 'therapeutic spaces.'

Effects of facilitated team meetings and learning collaboratives on colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care practices: a cluster randomized trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a primary care practice-based quality improvement (QI) intervention aimed at improving colorectal cancer screening rates. METHODS: The Supporting Colorectal Cancer Outcomes through Participatory Enhancements (SCOPE) study was a cluster randomized trial of New Jersey primary care practices. On-site facilitation and learning collaboratives were used to engage multiple stakeholders throughout the change process to identify and implement strategies to enhance colorectal cancer screening. Practices were analyzed using quantitative (medical records, surveys) and qualitative data (observations, interviews, and audio recordings) at baseline and a 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Comparing intervention and control arms of the 23 participating practices did not yield statistically significant improvements in patients' colorectal cancer screening rates. Qualitative analyses provide insights into practices' QI implementation, including associations between how well leaders fostered team development and the extent to which team members felt psychologically safe. Successful QI implementation did not always translate into improved screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although single-target, incremental QI interventions can be effective, practice transformation requires enhanced organizational learning and change capacities. The SCOPE model of QI may not be an optimal strategy if short-term guideline concordant numerical gains are the goal. Advancing the knowledge base of QI interventions requires future reports to address how and why QI interventions work rather than simply measuring whether they work.

Primary care practice transformation is hard work: insights from a 15-year developmental program of research.

BACKGROUND: Serious shortcomings remain in clinical care in the United States despite widespread use of improvement strategies for enhancing clinical performance based on knowledge transfer approaches. Recent calls to transform primary care practice to a patient-centered medical home present even greater challenges and require more effective approaches. METHODS: Our research team conducted a series of National Institutes of Health funded descriptive and intervention projects to understand organizational change in primary care practice settings, emphasizing a complexity science perspective. The result was a developmental research effort that enabled the identification of critical lessons relevant to enabling practice change. RESULTS: A summary of findings from a 15-year program of research highlights the limitations of viewing primary care practices in the mechanistic terms that underlie current or traditional approaches to quality improvement. A theoretical perspective that views primary care practices as dynamic complex adaptive systems with "agents" who have the capacity to learn, and the freedom to act in unpredictable ways provides a better framework for grounding quality improvement strategies. This framework strongly emphasizes that quality improvement interventions should not only use a complexity systems perspective, but also there is a need for continual reflection, careful tailoring of interventions, and ongoing attention to the quality of interactions among agents in the practice. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that current strategies for quality improvement will be successful in transforming current primary care practice to a patient-centered medical home without a stronger guiding theoretical foundation. Our work suggests that a theoretical framework guided by complexity science can help in the development of quality improvement strategies that will more effectively facilitate practice change.

Evaluation of patient centered medical home practice transformation initiatives.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has become a widely cited solution to the deficiencies in primary care delivery in the United States. To achieve the magnitude of change being called for in primary care, quality improvement interventions must focus on whole-system redesign, and not just isolated parts of medical practices. METHODS: Investigators participating in 9 different evaluations of Patient Centered Medical Home implementation shared experiences, methodological strategies, and evaluation challenges for evaluating primary care practice redesign. RESULTS: A year-long iterative process of sharing and reflecting on experiences produced consensus on 7 recommendations for future PCMH evaluations: (1) look critically at models being implemented and identify aspects requiring modification; (2) include embedded qualitative and quantitative data collection to detail the implementation process; (3) capture details concerning how different PCMH components interact with one another over time; (4) understand and describe how and why physician and staff roles do, or do not evolve; (5) identify the effectiveness of individual PCMH components and how they are used; (6) capture how primary care practices interface with other entities such as specialists, hospitals, and referral services; and (7) measure resources required for initiating and sustaining innovations. CONCLUSIONS: Broad-based longitudinal, mixed-methods designs that provide for shared learning among practice participants, program implementers, and evaluators are necessary to evaluate the novelty and promise of the PCMH model. All PCMH evaluations should as comprehensive as possible, and at a minimum should include a combination of brief observations and targeted qualitative interviews along with quantitative measures.

Defining and measuring the patient-centered medical home.

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is four things: 1) the fundamental tenets of primary care: first contact access, comprehensiveness, integration/coordination, and relationships involving sustained partnership; 2) new ways of organizing practice; 3) development of practices' internal capabilities, and 4) related health care system and reimbursement changes. All of these are focused on improving the health of whole people, families, communities and populations, and on increasing the value of healthcare. The value of the fundamental tenets of primary care is well established. This value includes higher health care quality, better whole-person and population health, lower cost and reduced inequalities compared to healthcare systems not based on primary care. The needed practice organizational and health care system change aspects of the PCMH are still evolving in highly related ways. The PCMH will continue to evolve as evidence comes in from hundreds of demonstrations and experiments ongoing around the country, and as the local and larger healthcare systems change. Measuring the PCMH involves the following: Giving primacy to the core tenets of primary care. Assessing practice and system changes that are hypothesized to provide added value Assessing development of practices' core processes and adaptive reserve. Assessing integration with more functional healthcare system and community resources. Evaluating the potential for unintended negative consequences from valuing the more easily measured instrumental features of the PCMH over the fundamental relationship and whole system aspects. Recognizing that since a fundamental benefit of primary care is its adaptability to diverse people, populations and systems, functional PCMHs will look different in different settings. Efforts to transform practice to patient-centered medical homes must recognize, assess and value the fundamental features of primary care that provide personalized, equitable health care and foster individual and population health.

Context for understanding the National Demonstration Project and the patient-centered medical home.

This article introduces a journal supplement evaluating the country's first national demonstration of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) concept. The PCMH is touted by some as a linchpin for renewing the foundering US health care system and its primary care foundation. The National Demonstration Project (NDP) tested a new model of care and compared facilitated and self-directed implementation approaches in a group-randomized clinical trial. The NDP asked what a national sample of 36 highly motivated family practices could accomplish in moving toward the PCMH ideal during 2 years within the current US health care payment and organizational system. Our independent evaluation used a multimethod approach that integrated qualitative methods to tell the NDP story from multiple perspectives and quantitative methods to assess and compare aspects that could be measured. The 7 scientific reports presented in this supplement explain the process, outcomes, lessons, and implications of the NDP. This introductory article provides context for making sense of the NDP. Important context includes the evolution of the PCMH concept and movement, the roots of the NDP and how it developed, and both what is valuable and what is problematic about family medicine and primary care. Together, the articles in this supplement show how primary care practices and the concept of the PCMH can continue to evolve. The evaluation depicts some of the early effects of this evolution on patients and practices, and shows how the process of practice development can be understood and how lessons from the NDP can inform ongoing and future efforts to transform primary care and health care systems.

Implementing the patient-centered medical home: observation and description of the national demonstration project.

PURPOSE: We provide an overall description of the National Demonstration Project (NDP) intervention to transform family practices into patient-centered medical homes. METHODS: An independent evaluation team used multiple data sources and methods to describe the design and implementation of the NDP. These included direct observation of the implementation team and project meetings, site visits to practices, depth interviews with practice members and implementation team members, access to practice communications (eg, telephone calls, e-mails), and public domain materials (eg, the NDP Web site). RESULTS: The American Academy of Family Physicians created a new division called TransforMED, which launched the 24-month NDP in June 2006. From 337 family medicine practices completing an extensive online application, 36 were selected and randomized to a facilitated group, which received tailored, intensive assistance and services from TransforMED, or a self-directed group, which received very limited assistance. Three facilitators from diverse backgrounds in finance, practice management, and organizational psychology used multiple practice change strategies including site visits, e-mails, metrics, and learning sessions. The self-directed practices worked primarily on their own, but self-organized a retreat midway through the project. The intervention model for the project evolved to be consistent with the emerging national consensus principles of the patient-centered medical home. The independent evaluation team studied the NDP and provided ongoing feedback to inform the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: The NDP illustrates that complex practice change interventions must combine flexibility in the intervention model, implementation strategy, and the evaluation, in order to maximize ongoing learning.

Effect of facilitation on practice outcomes in the National Demonstration Project model of the patient-centered medical home.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to elucidate the effect of facilitation on practice outcomes in the 2-year patient-centered medical home (PCMH) National Demonstration Project (NDP) intervention, and to describe practices' experience in implementing different components of the NDP model of the PCMH. METHODS: Thirty-six family practices were randomized to a facilitated intervention group or a self-directed intervention group. We measured 3 practice-level outcomes: (1) the proportion of 39 components of the NDP model that practices implemented, (2) the aggregate patient rating of the practices' PCMH attributes, and (3) the practices' ability to make and sustain change, which we term adaptive reserve. We used a repeated-measures analysis of variance to test the intervention effects. RESULTS: By the end of the 2 years of the NDP, practices in both facilitated and self-directed groups had at least 70% of the NDP model components in place. Implementation was relatively harder if the model component affected multiple roles and processes, required coordination across work units, necessitated additional resources and expertise, or challenged the traditional model of primary care. Electronic visits, group visits, team-based care, wellness promotion, and proactive population management presented the greatest challenges. Controlling for baseline differences and practice size, facilitated practices had greater increases in adaptive reserve (group difference by time, P = .005) and the proportion of NDP model components implemented (group difference by time, P=.02); the latter increased from 42% to 72% in the facilitated group and from 54% to 70% in the self-directed group. Patient ratings of the practices' PCMH attributes did not differ between groups and, in fact, diminished in both of them. CONCLUSIONS: Highly motivated practices can implement many components of the PCMH in 2 years, but apparently at a cost of diminishing the patient's experience of care. Intense facilitation increases the number of components implemented and improves practices' adaptive reserve. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the sustained and evolving effects of moving independent practices toward PCMHs.

Journey to the patient-centered medical home: a qualitative analysis of the experiences of practices in the National Demonstration Project.

PURPOSE: We describe the experience of practices in transitioning toward patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) in the National Demonstration Project (NDP). METHODS: The NDP was launched in June 2006 as the first national test of a model of the PCMH in a diverse sample of 36 family practices, randomized to facilitated and self-directed intervention groups. An independent evaluation team used a multimethod evaluation strategy, analyzing data from direct observation, depth interviews, e-mail streams, medical records, and patient and practice surveys. The evaluation team reviewed data from all practices as they became available and produced interim summaries. Four 2- to 3-day evaluation team retreats were held during which case summaries of all practices were discussed and patterns were described. RESULTS: The 6 themes that emerged from the data reflect major shifts in individual and practice roles and identities, as well as changes in practices' management strategies. The themes are (1) practice adaptive reserve is critical to managing change, (2) developmental pathways to success vary considerably by practice, (3) motivation of key practice members is critical, (4) the larger system can help or hinder, (5) practice transformation is more than a series of changes and requires shifts in roles and mental models, and (6) practice change is enabled by the multiple roles that facilitators play. CONCLUSIONS: Transformation to a PCMH requires more than a sequence of discrete changes. The practice transformation process may be fostered by promoting adaptive reserve and local control of the developmental pathway.

Primary care practice development: a relationship-centered approach.

PURPOSE: Numerous primary care practice development efforts, many related to the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), are emerging across the United States with few guides available to inform them. This article presents a relationship-centered practice development approach to understand practice and to aid in fostering practice development to advance key attributes of primary care that include access to first-contact care, comprehensive care, coordination of care, and a personal relationship over time. METHODS: Informed by complexity theory and relational theories of organizational learning, we built on discoveries from the American Academy of Family Physicians' National Demonstration Project (NDP) and 15 years of research to understand and improve primary care practice. RESULTS: Primary care practices can fruitfully be understood as complex adaptive systems consisting of a core (a practice's key resources, organizational structure, and functional processes), adaptive reserve (practice features that enhance resilience, such as relationships), and attentiveness to the local environment. The effectiveness of these attributes represents the practice's internal capability. With adequate motivation, healthy, thriving practices advance along a pathway of slow, continuous developmental change with occasional rapid periods of transformation as they evolve better fits with their environment. Practice development is enhanced through systematically using strategies that involve setting direction and boundaries, implementing sensing systems, focusing on creative tensions, and fostering learning conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Successful practice development begins with changes that strengthen practices' core, build adaptive reserve, and expand attentiveness to the local environment. Development progresses toward transformation through enhancing primary care attributes.

Summary of the National Demonstration Project and recommendations for the patient-centered medical home.

This article summarizes findings from the National Demonstration Project (NDP) and makes recommendations for policy makers and those implementing patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) based on these findings and an understanding of diverse efforts to transform primary care. The NDP was launched in June 2006 as the first national test of a particular PCMH model in a diverse sample of 36 family practices, randomized to facilitated or self-directed groups. An independent evaluation team used a multimethod evaluation strategy, analyzing data from direct observation, depth interviews, e-mail streams, medical record audits, and patient and clinical staff surveys. Peer-reviewed manuscripts from the NDP provide answers to 4 key questions: (1) Can the NDP model be built? (2) What does it take to build the NDP model? (3) Does the NDP model make a difference in quality of care? and (4) Can the NDP model be widely disseminated? We find that although it is feasible to transform independent practices into the NDP conceptualization of a PCMH, this transformation requires tremendous effort and motivation, and benefits from external support. Most practices will need additional resources for this magnitude of transformation. Recommendations focus on the need for the PCMH model to continue to evolve, for delivery system reform, and for sufficient resources for implementing personal and practice development plans. In the meantime, we find that much can be done before larger health system reform.

Using Learning Teams for Reflective Adaptation (ULTRA): insights from a team-based change management strategy in primary care.

PURPOSE: The Using Learning Teams for Reflective Adaptation (ULTRA) study used facilitated reflective adaptive process (RAP) teams to enhance communication and decision making in hopes of improving adherence to multiple clinical guidelines; however, the study failed to show significant clinical improvements. The purpose of this study was to examine qualitative data from 25 intervention practices to understand how they engaged in a team-based collaborative change management strategy and the types of issues they addressed. METHODS: We analyzed field notes and interviews from a multimethod practice assessment, as well as field notes and audio-taped recordings from RAP meetings, using an iterative group process and an immersion-crystallization approach. RESULTS: Despite a history of not meeting regularly, 18 of 25 practices successfully convened improvement teams. There was evidence of improved practice-wide communication in 12 of these practices. At follow-up, 8 practices continued RAP meetings and found the process valuable in problem solving and decision making. Seven practices failed to engage in RAP primarily because of key leaders dominating the meeting agenda or staff members hesitating to speak up in meetings. Although the number of improvement targets varied considerably, most RAP teams targeted patient care-related issues or practice-level organizational improvement issues. Not a single practice focused on adherence to clinical care guidelines. CONCLUSION: Primary care practices can successfully engage in facilitated team meetings; however, leaders must be engaged in the process. Additional strategies are needed to engage practice leaders, particularly physicians, and to target issues related to guideline adherence.

Patient outcomes at 26 months in the patient-centered medical home National Demonstration Project.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient outcomes in the National Demonstration Project (NDP) of practices' transition to patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). METHODS: In 2006, a total of 36 family practices were randomized to facilitated or self-directed intervention groups. Progress toward the PCMH was measured by independent assessments of how many of 39 predominantly technological NDP model components the practices adopted. We evaluated 2 types of patient outcomes with repeated cross-sectional surveys and medical record audits at baseline, 9 months, and 26 months: patient-rated outcomes and condition-specific quality of care outcomes. Patient-rated outcomes included core primary care attributes, patient empowerment, general health status, and satisfaction with the service relationship. Condition-specific outcomes were measures of the quality of care from the Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance (ACQA) Starter Set and measures of delivery of clinical preventive services and chronic disease care. RESULTS: Practices adopted substantial numbers of NDP components over 26 months. Facilitated practices adopted more new components on average than self-directed practices (10.7 components vs 7.7 components, P=.005). ACQA scores improved over time in both groups (by 8.3% in the facilitated group and by 9.1% in the self-directed group, P <.0001) as did chronic care scores (by 5.2% in the facilitated group and by 5.0% in the self-directed group, P=.002), with no significant differences between groups. There were no improvements in patient-rated outcomes. Adoption of PCMH components was associated with improved access (standardized beta [Sbeta]=0.32, P = .04) and better prevention scores (Sbeta=0.42, P=.001), ACQA scores (Sbeta=0.45, P = .007), and chronic care scores (Sbeta=0.25, P =.08). CONCLUSIONS: After slightly more than 2 years, implementation of PCMH components, whether by facilitation or practice self-direction, was associated with small improvements in condition-specific quality of care but not patient experience. PCMH models that call for practice change without altering the broader delivery system may not achieve their intended results, at least in the short term.

Methods for evaluating practice change toward a patient-centered medical home.

PURPOSE: Understanding the transformation of primary care practices to patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) requires making sense of the change process, multilevel outcomes, and context. We describe the methods used to evaluate the country's first national demonstration project of the PCMH concept, with an emphasis on the quantitative measures and lessons for multimethod evaluation approaches. METHODS: The National Demonstration Project (NDP) was a group-randomized clinical trial of facilitated and self-directed implementation strategies for the PCMH. An independent evaluation team developed an integrated package of quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate the process and outcomes of the NDP for practices and patients. Data were collected by an ethnographic analyst and a research nurse who visited each practice, and from multiple data sources including a medical record audit, patient and staff surveys, direct observation, interviews, and text review. Analyses aimed to provide real-time feedback to the NDP implementation team and lessons that would be transferable to the larger practice, policy, education, and research communities. RESULTS: Real-time analyses and feedback appeared to be helpful to the facilitators. Medical record audits provided data on process-of-care outcomes. Patient surveys contributed important information about patient-rated primary care attributes and patient-centered outcomes. Clinician and staff surveys provided important practice experience and organizational data. Ethnographic observations supplied insights about the process of practice development. Most practices were not able to provide detailed financial information. CONCLUSIONS: A multimethod approach is challenging, but feasible and vital to understanding the process and outcome of a practice development process. Additional longitudinal follow-up of NDP practices and their patients is needed.

Initial lessons from the first national demonstration project on practice transformation to a patient-centered medical home.

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is emerging as a potential catalyst for multiple health care reform efforts. Demonstration projects are beginning in nearly every state, with a broad base of support from employers, insurers, state and federal agencies, and professional organizations. A sense of urgency to show the feasibility of the PCMH, along with a 3-tiered recognition process of the National Committee on Quality Assurance, are influencing the design and implementation of many demonstrations. In June 2006, the American Academy of Family Physicians launched the first National Demonstration Project (NDP) to test a model of the PCMH in a diverse national sample of 36 family practices. The authors make up an independent evaluation team for the NDP that used a multimethod evaluation strategy, including direct observation, in-depth interviews, chart audit, and patient and practice surveys. Early lessons from the real-time qualitative analysis of the NDP raise some serious concerns about the current direction of many of the proposed PCMH demonstration projects and point to some positive opportunities. We describe 6 early lessons from the NDP that address these concerns and then offer 4 recommendations for those assisting the transformation of primary care practices and 4 recommendations for individual practices attempting transformation.