How can we remodel practices into medical homes without a blueprint or a bank account?

Differences in Diabetes Care With and Without Certification as a Medical Home

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess whether primary care practices certified as medical homes differ in having the practice systems required for that designation and in attaining favorable outcomes for their patients with diabetes, and whether those systems are associated with better diabetes outcomes.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional observational study, Understanding Infrastructure Transformation Effects on Diabetes (UNITED), of 586 Minnesota adult primary care practices, comparing those that were certified vs uncertified as medical homes in 2017, with analyses supplemented by previously published studies of these practices. We collected survey information about the presence of medical home practice systems for diabetes care and obtained 6 standardized measures of diabetes care collected yearly from all Minnesota practices.

RESULTS

Of 416 practices completing questionnaires (71% of all practices, 92% of participating practices), 394 had data on diabetes care measures. Uncertified practices (39%) were more likely than certified practices to be rural, but their patient populations were similar. Certified practices had more medical home practice systems (79.2% vs 74.9%, P =.01) and were more likely to meet a composite measure of optimal diabetes care (46.8% vs 43.2%, P <.001). A 1-SD increase in presence of practice systems was associated with a 1.4% higher probability of meeting that measure (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Practices certified as medical homes have more practice systems and higher performance on diabetes care than uncertified practices, but there is extensive overlap, and any differences may reflect self-selection for certification.

More than a score: a qualitative study of ancillary benefits of performance measurement

BACKGROUND

Prior research has examined clinical effects of performance measurement systems. To the extent that non-clinical effects have been researched, the focus has been on negative unintended consequences. Yet, these same systems may also have ancillary benefits for patients and providers--that is, benefits that extend beyond improvements on clinical measures. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe potential ancillary benefits of performance measures as perceived by primary care staff and facility leaders in a large US healthcare system.

METHODS

In-person individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 59 primary care staff and facility leaders at four Veterans Health Administration facilities. Transcribed interviews were coded and organised into thematic categories.

RESULTS

Interviewed staff observed that local performance measurement implementation practices can result in increased patient knowledge and motivation. These effects on patients can lead to improved performance scores and additional ancillary benefits. Performance measurement implementation can also directly result in ancillary benefits for the patients and providers. Patients may experience greater satisfaction with care and psychosocial benefits associated with increased provider-patient communication. Ancillary benefits of performance measurement for providers include increased pride in individual or organisational performance and greater confidence that one's practice is grounded in evidence-based medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive understanding of the effects of performance measurement systems needs to incorporate ancillary benefits as well as effects on clinical performance scores and negative unintended consequences. Although clinical performance has been the focus of most evaluations of performance measurement to date, both patient care and provider satisfaction may improve more rapidly if all three categories of effects are considered when designing and evaluating performance measurement systems.

Medical home transformation: a gradual process and a continuum of attainment

PURPOSE

The patient-centered medical home is often discussed as though there exist either traditional practices or medical homes, with marked differences between them. We analyzed data from an evaluation of certified medical homes in Minnesota to study this topic.

METHODS

We obtained publicly reported composite measures for quality of care outcomes pertaining to diabetes and vascular disease for all clinics in Minnesota from 2008 to 2010. The extent of and change in practice systems over that same time period for the first 120 clinics serving adults certified as health care homes (HCHs) was measured by the Physician Practice Connections Research Survey (PPC-RS), a self-report tool similar to the National Committee for Quality Assurance standards for patient-centered medical homes. Measures were compared between these clinics and 518 non-HCH clinics in the state.

RESULTS

Among the 102 clinics for which we had precertification and postcertification scores for both the PPC-RS and either diabetes or vascular disease measures, the mean increase in systems score over 3 years was an absolute 29.1% (SD = 16.7%) from a baseline score of 38.8% (SD = 16.5%, P ≤.001). The proportion of clinics in which all patients had optimal diabetes measures improved by an absolute 2.1% (SD = 5.5%, P ≤.001) and the proportion in which all had optimal cardiovascular disease measures by 4.4% (SD = 7.5%, P ≤.001), but all measures varied widely among clinics. Mean performance rates of HCH clinics were higher than those of non-HCH clinics, but there was extensive overlap, and neither group changed much over this time period.

CONCLUSIONS

The extensive variation among HCH clinics, their overlap with non-HCH clinics, and the small change in performance over time suggest that medical homes are not similar, that change in outcomes is slow, and that there is a continuum of transformation.

Trends in quality during medical home transformation

PURPOSE We describe changes over time in performance on measures of technical quality and patient experience as a group of primary care clinics transformed themselves into level III patient-centered medical homes. METHODS A group of 21 Minnesota primary care clinics achieving level III recognition as medical homes by the National Committee for Quality Assurance has been tracking a variety of quality and patient satisfaction measures for years. We analyzed trends in these measures and compared them with those of other medical groups in the community to estimate what we might expect as other primary care sites gear up to achieve medical home status. RESULTS The clinics in this group achieved a 1% to 3% increase per year in patient satisfaction and a 2% to 7% increase per year in performance on quality measures for diabetes, coronary artery disease, preventive services, and generic medication use. When compared with the average for other medical groups in the region, the rates of increase were greater for satisfaction, but similar for the quality measures. CONCLUSIONS Achieving medical home recognition was associated with improvements in quality and patient satisfaction for these clinics, but the rate of improvement is slow and does not always exceed levels in the surrounding community in Minnesota (which are also improving). Expectations for large and rapid change are probably unrealistic.