Implementation of Care Management: An Analysis of Recent AHRQ Research.

Care management (CM) is a promising team-based, patient-centered approach "designed to assist patients and their support systems in managing medical conditions more effectively." As little is known about its implementation, this article describes CM implementation and associated lessons from 12 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-sponsored projects. Two rounds of data collection resulted in project-specific narratives that were analyzed using an iterative approach analogous to framework analysis. Informants also participated as coauthors. Variation emerged across practices and over time regarding CM services provided, personnel delivering these services, target populations, and setting(s). Successful implementation was characterized by resource availability (both monetary and nonmonetary), identifying as well as training employees with the right technical expertise and interpersonal skills, and embedding CM within practices. Our findings facilitate future context-specific implementation of CM within medical homes. They also inform the development of medical home recognition programs that anticipate and allow for contextual variation.

Implementation of Patient-Centered Medical Homes in Adult Primary Care Practices.

There has been relatively little empirical evidence about the effects of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation on patient-related outcomes and costs. Using a longitudinal design and a large study group of 2,218 Michigan adult primary care practices, our study examined the following research questions: Is the level of, and change in, implementation of PCMH associated with medical surgical cost, preventive services utilization, and quality of care in the following year? Results indicated that both level and amount of change in practice implementation of PCMH are independently and positively associated with measures of quality of care and use of preventive services, after controlling for a variety of practice, patient cohort, and practice environmental characteristics. Results also indicate that lower overall medical and surgical costs are associated with higher levels of PCMH implementation, although change in PCMH implementation did not achieve statistical significance.

Context matters: the experience of 14 research teams in systematically reporting contextual factors important for practice change.

PURPOSE: We aimed to advance the internal and external validity of research by sharing our empirical experience and recommendations for systematically reporting contextual factors. METHODS: Fourteen teams conducting research on primary care practice transformation retrospectively considered contextual factors important to interpreting their findings (internal validity) and transporting or reinventing their findings in other settings/situations (external validity). Each team provided a table or list of important contextual factors and interpretive text included as appendices to the articles in this supplement. Team members identified the most important contextual factors for their studies. We grouped the findings thematically and developed recommendations for reporting context. RESULTS: The most important contextual factors sorted into 5 domains: (1) the practice setting, (2) the larger organization, (3) the external environment, (4) implementation pathway, and (5) the motivation for implementation. To understand context, investigators recommend (1) engaging diverse perspectives and data sources, (2) considering multiple levels, (3) evaluating history and evolution over time, (4) looking at formal and informal systems and culture, and (5) assessing the (often nonlinear) interactions between contextual factors and both the process and outcome of studies. We include a template with tabular and interpretive elements to help study teams engage research participants in reporting relevant context. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of identifying and reporting contextual factors. Involving diverse stakeholders in assessing context at multiple stages of the research process, examining their association with outcomes, and consistently reporting critical contextual factors are important challenges for a field interested in improving the internal and external validity and impact of health care research.

Assessment and measurement of patient-centered medical home implementation: the BCBSM experience.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to describe an approach to patient-centered medical home (PCMH) measurement based on delineating the desired properties of the measurement relative to assumptions about the PCMH and the uses of the measure by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and health services researchers. METHODS: We developed and validated an approach to assess 13 functional domains of PCMHs and 128 capabilities within those domains. A measure of PCMH implementation was constructed using data from the validated self-assessment and then tested on a large sample of primary care practices in Michigan. RESULTS: Our results suggest that the measure adequately addresses the specific requirements and assumptions underlying the BCBSM PCMH program-ability to assess change in level of implementation; ability to compare across practices regardless of size, affiliation, or payer mix; and ability to assess implementation of the PCMH through different sequencing of capabilities and domains. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience illustrates that approaches to measuring PCMH should be driven by the measures' intended use(s) and users, and that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate. Rather than promoting the BCBSM PCMH measure as the gold standard, our study highlights the challenges, strengths, and limitations of developing a standardized approach to PCMH measurement.

The policy context of patient centered medical homes: perspectives of primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Interest in the patient centered medical home (PCMH) model has increased significantly in recent years. Despite this attention, information is limited regarding the influence of policy context on implementation of the PCMH model. Using comparative, qualitative data, we identify several key policy impediments to PCMH implementation, and propose practical guidelines for addressing these issues. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured in-person interviews with representatives of physician organizations and primary care practices pursuing PCMH. PARTICIPANTS: Practitioners and staff at 16 physician practices in Michigan, as well as key leaders of physician organizations. KEY RESULTS: We identified five primary policy issues cited by physicians and physician organization leaders as most impactful on their efforts to adopt PCMH: misalignment of current reimbursement schemes, administrative burden, conflicting criteria for PCMH designation, workforce policy issues, and uncertainty of health care reform. These policies were largely seen as barriers to their ability to implement PCMH. CONCLUSIONS: Providers' motivation to embrace PCMH, and their level of confidence regarding the results of such change, are greatly influenced by their perception of the external environment and the control they believe they have over this environment. Having policies in place that shape the path to PCMH in a manner that makes it as easy as possible for providers to accomplish the desired changes could well make the difference in whether successful transformation is achieved.

Physician organization-practice team integration for the advancement of patient-centered care.

The patient-centered medical home is being promoted as a cornerstone for transforming primary care. Physician organizations (POs) are playing a more prominent role by facilitating practices' transformation to the patient-centered medical home. Using a framework of organizational integration, we investigated the changing relationship between POs and practices through qualitative interviews. Through increased integration, POs can support both the big picture and day-to-day activities of practice transformation. Most PO-practice unit connections we identified reflected new areas of engagement-competencies that POs were not developing in the past-that are proving integral to the broad-scale practice change of patient-centered medical home implementation.

Journey toward a patient-centered medical home: readiness for change in primary care practices.

CONTEXT: Information is limited regarding the readiness of primary care practices to make the transformational changes necessary to implement the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model. Using comparative, qualitative data, we provide practical guidelines for assessing and increasing readiness for PCMH implementation. METHODS: We used a comparative case study design to assess primary care practices' readiness for PCMH implementation in sixteen practices from twelve different physician organizations in Michigan. Two major components of organizational readiness, motivation and capability, were assessed. We interviewed eight practice teams with higher PCMH scores and eight with lower PCMH scores, along with the leaders of the physician organizations of these practices, yielding sixty-six semistructured interviews. FINDINGS: The respondents from the higher and lower PCMH scoring practices reported different motivations and capabilities for pursuing PCMH. Their motivations pertained to the perceived value of PCMH, financial incentives, understanding of specific PCMH requirements, and overall commitment to change. Capabilities that were discussed included the time demands of implementation, the difficulty of changing patients' behavior, and the challenges of adopting health information technology. Enhancing the implementation of PCMH within practices included taking an incremental approach, using data, building a team and defining roles of its members, and meeting regularly to discuss the implementation. The respondents valued external organizational support, regardless of its source. CONCLUSIONS: The respondents from the higher and lower PCMH scoring practices commented on similar aspects of readiness-motivation and capability-but offered very different views of them. Our findings suggest the importance of understanding practice perceptions of the motivations for PCMH and the capability to undertake change. While this study identified some initial approaches that physician organizations and practices have used to prepare for practice redesign, we need much more information about their effectiveness.

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.

Population-based medical and disease management: an evaluation of cost and quality.

Reports by the Institute of Medicine and the Health Care Financing Administration have emphasized that the integration of medical care delivery, evidence-based medicine, and chronic care disease management may play a significant role in improving the quality of care and reducing medical care costs. The specific aim of this project is to assess the impact of an integrated set of care coordination tools and chronic disease management interventions on utilization, cost, and quality of care for a population of beneficiaries who have complementary health coverage through a plan designed to apply proactive medical and disease management processes. The utilization of health care services by the study population was compared to another population from the same geographic service area and covered by a traditional fee-for-service indemnity insurance plan that provided few medical or disease management services. Evaluation of the difference in utilization was based on the difference in the cost per-member-per-month (PMPM) in a 1-year measurement period, after adjusting for differences in fee schedules, case-mix and healthcare benefit design. After adjustments for both case-mix and benefit differences, the study group is $63 PMPM less costly than the comparison population for all members. Cost differences are largest in the 55-64 and 65 and above age groups. The study group is $115 PMPM lower than the comparison population for the age category of 65 years and older, after adjustments for case-mix and benefits. Health Plan Employer and Data Information Set (HEDIS)-based quality outcomes are near the 90th percentile for most indications. The cost outcomes of a population served by proactive, population-based disease management and complex care management, compared to an unmanaged population, demonstrates the potential of coordinated medical and disease management programs. Further studies utilizing appropriate methodologies would be beneficial.