JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Oct 14;173(18):1694-701. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9241.
The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model holds promise for improving primary care delivery, but it has not been adequately tested in teaching settings.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We implemented an intervention guided by PCMH principles at a safety-net teaching clinic with resident physician providers. Two similar clinics served as controls.
Using a cross-sectional design, we measured the effect on patient and resident satisfaction using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey and a validated teaching clinic survey, respectively. Both surveys were conducted at baseline and 1 year after the intervention. We also measured the effect on emergency department and hospital utilization.
Following implementation of our intervention, the clinic’s score on the National Committee for Quality Assurance’s PCMH certification tool improved from 35 to 53 of 100 possible points, although our clinic did not achieve all must-pass elements to qualify as a PCMH. During the 1-year study period, 4676 patients were exposed to the intervention; 39.9% of these used at least 1 program component. Compared with baseline, patient-reported access and overall satisfaction improved to a greater extent in the intervention clinic, and the composite satisfaction rating increased from 48% to 65% in the intervention clinic vs from 50% to 59% in the control sites (P = .04). The improvements were particularly notable for questions relating to access. For example, satisfaction with urgent appointment scheduling increased from 12% to 53% in the intervention clinic vs from 14% to 18% in the control clinics (P < .001). Resident satisfaction also improved in the intervention clinic: the composite satisfaction score increased from 39% to 51% in the intervention clinic vs a decrease from 46% to 42% in the control clinics (P = .01). Emergency department utilization did not differ significantly between the intervention and control clinics, and hospitalizations increased from 26 to 27 visits per 1000 patients per month in the intervention clinic vs a decrease from 28 to 25 in the control clinics (P = .02).
Our PCMH-guided intervention, which represented a modest but substantive step toward the PCMH vision, had favorable effects on patient and resident satisfaction at a safety-net teaching clinic but did not reduce emergency department or hospital utilization in the first year. Our experience may provide lessons for other teaching clinics in safety-net settings hoping to implement PCMH-guided reforms.
以患者为中心的医疗之家(PCMH)模式有望改善初级保健服务的提供,但尚未在教学环境中得到充分测试。
设计、环境和参与者:我们在一家拥有住院医师提供者的医疗保障教学诊所实施了一项以 PCMH 原则为指导的干预措施。两个类似的诊所作为对照。
使用横断面设计,我们使用消费者评估医疗保健提供者和系统调查分别衡量对患者和居民满意度的影响,以及经过验证的教学诊所调查。这两个调查都在干预前和干预后 1 年进行。我们还衡量了对急诊室和医院利用的影响。
在我们的干预措施实施后,该诊所的国家质量保证委员会(National Committee for Quality Assurance)的 PCMH 认证工具得分为 35 分,满分 100 分,尽管我们的诊所没有达到所有合格的要素,但仍符合 PCMH 的要求。在为期 1 年的研究期间,有 4676 名患者接受了干预措施;其中 39.9%的患者至少使用了 1 个项目组件。与基线相比,干预诊所的患者报告的获得途径和整体满意度有了更大的改善,综合满意度评分从干预诊所的 48%上升到 65%,而对照点的评分从 50%上升到 59%(P=0.04)。在与获得途径相关的问题上,改善尤为明显。例如,在干预诊所,对紧急预约安排的满意度从 12%上升到 53%,而对照诊所则从 14%上升到 18%(P<0.001)。居民满意度也在干预诊所得到改善:综合满意度评分从干预诊所的 39%上升到 51%,而对照诊所则从 46%下降到 42%(P=0.01)。干预和对照诊所的急诊室利用率没有显著差异,干预诊所的住院人数从每月每 1000 名患者 26 次增加到 27 次,而对照诊所则从每月每 1000 名患者 28 次减少到 25 次(P=0.02)。
我们以 PCMH 为指导的干预措施代表了向 PCMH 愿景迈出的适度但实质性的一步,它对医疗保障教学诊所的患者和居民满意度产生了有利影响,但在第一年并没有减少急诊室或医院的利用。我们的经验可能为其他希望实施以 PCMH 为指导的改革的医疗保障教学诊所提供借鉴。