在 "以患者为中心的医疗之家 "转型过程中衡量进展的工具。

American journal of accountable care Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2017-12-15
Denise D Quigley, Zachary S Predmore, Ron D Hays
{"title":"在 \"以患者为中心的医疗之家 \"转型过程中衡量进展的工具。","authors":"Denise D Quigley, Zachary S Predmore, Ron D Hays","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review tools designed to evaluate and improve the extent of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Literature search and review of tools to evaluate PCMH \"medical homeness\" and track progress toward practice transformation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a literature search to identify tools designed for evaluation and quality improvement during the PCMH change process. We identified and reviewed the content of 5 publicly available PCMH survey tools used by an administrator or clinical lead to collect data at the practice level for evaluation and/or quality improvement during PCMH implementation. We assessed each tool's coverage of PCMH content, standards, and requirements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that 3 tools (Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment [PCMH-A], Primary Care Assessment Tool-Facility Edition, and Medical Home Care Coordination Survey-Healthcare Team [MHCCS-H]) are actionable for quality improvement. PCMH-A assesses the broadest array of practice capabilities and includes items pertaining to all National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH standards. MHCCS-H was the only tool to contain items on comprehensiveness of care. There was variation in emphasis on main domains, with some content areas covered by only 1 tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is currently little evidence on which PCMH tools are associated with improved quality outcomes, as relatively few longitudinal studies have been conducted. Of the 5 tools we reviewed, only PCMH-A and MHCCS-H impose a light administrative burden (less than 10 minutes to complete) and can identify specific actions to improve a given practice capability. Each tool is lacking in a particular content area: PCMH-A, for example, lacks items on comprehensiveness of care, whereas MHCCS-H lacks items addressing access to care.</p>","PeriodicalId":72160,"journal":{"name":"American journal of accountable care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11113621/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tools to Gauge Progress During Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation.\",\"authors\":\"Denise D Quigley, Zachary S Predmore, Ron D Hays\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review tools designed to evaluate and improve the extent of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Literature search and review of tools to evaluate PCMH \\\"medical homeness\\\" and track progress toward practice transformation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a literature search to identify tools designed for evaluation and quality improvement during the PCMH change process. We identified and reviewed the content of 5 publicly available PCMH survey tools used by an administrator or clinical lead to collect data at the practice level for evaluation and/or quality improvement during PCMH implementation. We assessed each tool's coverage of PCMH content, standards, and requirements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that 3 tools (Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment [PCMH-A], Primary Care Assessment Tool-Facility Edition, and Medical Home Care Coordination Survey-Healthcare Team [MHCCS-H]) are actionable for quality improvement. PCMH-A assesses the broadest array of practice capabilities and includes items pertaining to all National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH standards. MHCCS-H was the only tool to contain items on comprehensiveness of care. There was variation in emphasis on main domains, with some content areas covered by only 1 tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is currently little evidence on which PCMH tools are associated with improved quality outcomes, as relatively few longitudinal studies have been conducted. Of the 5 tools we reviewed, only PCMH-A and MHCCS-H impose a light administrative burden (less than 10 minutes to complete) and can identify specific actions to improve a given practice capability. Each tool is lacking in a particular content area: PCMH-A, for example, lacks items on comprehensiveness of care, whereas MHCCS-H lacks items addressing access to care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of accountable care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11113621/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of accountable care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/12/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of accountable care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的回顾旨在评估和改进以患者为中心的医疗之家 (PCMH) 实施程度的工具:方法: 我们进行了文献检索,并对用于评估 PCMH "医疗之家 "和跟踪实践转型进展的工具进行了回顾:我们进行了文献检索,以确定在 PCMH 改革过程中用于评估和质量改进的工具。我们确定并审查了 5 种公开可用的 PCMH 调查工具的内容,这些工具由管理者或临床负责人在 PCMH 实施过程中用于收集实践层面的数据,以进行评估和/或质量改进。我们评估了每种工具对 PCMH 内容、标准和要求的覆盖范围:结果:我们发现 3 种工具(以患者为中心的医疗之家评估 [PCMH-A]、初级医疗评估工具-设施版和医疗之家护理协调调查-医疗团队 [MHCCS-H])可用于质量改进。PCMH-A 评估了最广泛的实践能力,包括与国家质量保证委员会 PCMH 标准相关的所有项目。MHCCS-H 是唯一包含全面护理项目的工具。主要领域的侧重点有所不同,有些内容领域只有一种工具涵盖:结论:由于纵向研究相对较少,目前几乎没有证据表明哪些 PCMH 工具与质量结果的改善有关。在我们审查的 5 种工具中,只有 PCMH-A 和 MHCCS-H 所带来的管理负担较轻(完成时间少于 10 分钟),并能确定提高特定实践能力的具体行动。每种工具都在特定内容领域有所欠缺:例如,PCMH-A 缺乏有关护理全面性的项目,而 MHCCS-H 则缺乏有关获得护理的项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Tools to Gauge Progress During Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation.

Objectives: To review tools designed to evaluate and improve the extent of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation.

Study design: Literature search and review of tools to evaluate PCMH "medical homeness" and track progress toward practice transformation.

Methods: We conducted a literature search to identify tools designed for evaluation and quality improvement during the PCMH change process. We identified and reviewed the content of 5 publicly available PCMH survey tools used by an administrator or clinical lead to collect data at the practice level for evaluation and/or quality improvement during PCMH implementation. We assessed each tool's coverage of PCMH content, standards, and requirements.

Results: We found that 3 tools (Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment [PCMH-A], Primary Care Assessment Tool-Facility Edition, and Medical Home Care Coordination Survey-Healthcare Team [MHCCS-H]) are actionable for quality improvement. PCMH-A assesses the broadest array of practice capabilities and includes items pertaining to all National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH standards. MHCCS-H was the only tool to contain items on comprehensiveness of care. There was variation in emphasis on main domains, with some content areas covered by only 1 tool.

Conclusions: There is currently little evidence on which PCMH tools are associated with improved quality outcomes, as relatively few longitudinal studies have been conducted. Of the 5 tools we reviewed, only PCMH-A and MHCCS-H impose a light administrative burden (less than 10 minutes to complete) and can identify specific actions to improve a given practice capability. Each tool is lacking in a particular content area: PCMH-A, for example, lacks items on comprehensiveness of care, whereas MHCCS-H lacks items addressing access to care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Primary Care Case Conferences to Mitigate Social Determinants of Health: A Case Study from One FQHC System. Medicare Accountable Care Organizations Reduce Spending on Surgery. Medicare Accountable Care Organizations Reduce Spending on Surgery. Implementation Variation in Natural Experiments of State Health Policy Initiatives. Increased Healthcare Utilization and Expenditures Associated With Chronic Opioid Therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1