Recommendations for a mixed methods approach to evaluating the Patient-Centered medical home

Roberta E. Goldman, Donna Parker, Joanna Brown, Judith Walker, Charles B. Eaton, Jeffrey M. Borkan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE There is a strong push in the United States to evaluate whether the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model produces desired results. The explanatory and contextually based questions of how and why PCMH succeeds in different practice settings are often neglected. We report the development of a comprehensive, mixed qualitative-quantitative evaluation set for researchers, policy makers, and clinician groups. METHODS To develop an evaluation set, the Brown Primary Care Transformation Initiative convened a multidisciplinary group of PCMH experts, reviewed the PCMH literature and evaluation strategies, developed key domains for evaluation, and selected or created methods and measures for inclusion. RESULTS The measures and methods in the evaluation set (survey instruments, PCMH meta-measures, patient outcomes, quality measures, qualitative interviews, participant observation, and process evaluation) are meant to be used together. PCMH evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to assess and explain both the context of transformation in different primary care practices and the experiences of diverse stakeholders. In addition to commonly assessed patient outcomes, quality, and cost, it is critical to include PCMH components integral to practice culture transformation: patient and family centeredness, authentic patient activation, mutual trust among practice employees and patients, and transparency, joy, and collaboration in delivering and receiving care in a changing environment. CONCLUSIONS This evaluation set offers a comprehensive methodology to enable understanding of how PCMH transformation occurs in different practice settings. This approach can foster insights about how transformation affects critical outcomes to achieve meaningful, patient-centered, high-quality, and cost-effective sustainable change among diverse primary care practices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)168-175
Number of pages8
JournalAnnals of Family Medicine
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient-Centered Care
Primary Health Care
Patient Participation
Costs and Cost Analysis
Administrative Personnel

Keywords

  • Context
  • Evaluation
  • Mixed methods
  • Patient-centered medical home
  • Practice transformation
  • Qualitative methods
  • Quantitative methods

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Family Practice

Cite this

Recommendations for a mixed methods approach to evaluating the Patient-Centered medical home. / Goldman, Roberta E.; Parker, Donna; Brown, Joanna; Walker, Judith; Eaton, Charles B.; Borkan, Jeffrey M.

In: Annals of Family Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2015, p. 168-175.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Goldman, Roberta E. ; Parker, Donna ; Brown, Joanna ; Walker, Judith ; Eaton, Charles B. ; Borkan, Jeffrey M. / Recommendations for a mixed methods approach to evaluating the Patient-Centered medical home. In: Annals of Family Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 168-175.
@article{7ade699fea50450d85278281461e4ca0,
title = "Recommendations for a mixed methods approach to evaluating the Patient-Centered medical home",
abstract = "PURPOSE There is a strong push in the United States to evaluate whether the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model produces desired results. The explanatory and contextually based questions of how and why PCMH succeeds in different practice settings are often neglected. We report the development of a comprehensive, mixed qualitative-quantitative evaluation set for researchers, policy makers, and clinician groups. METHODS To develop an evaluation set, the Brown Primary Care Transformation Initiative convened a multidisciplinary group of PCMH experts, reviewed the PCMH literature and evaluation strategies, developed key domains for evaluation, and selected or created methods and measures for inclusion. RESULTS The measures and methods in the evaluation set (survey instruments, PCMH meta-measures, patient outcomes, quality measures, qualitative interviews, participant observation, and process evaluation) are meant to be used together. PCMH evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to assess and explain both the context of transformation in different primary care practices and the experiences of diverse stakeholders. In addition to commonly assessed patient outcomes, quality, and cost, it is critical to include PCMH components integral to practice culture transformation: patient and family centeredness, authentic patient activation, mutual trust among practice employees and patients, and transparency, joy, and collaboration in delivering and receiving care in a changing environment. CONCLUSIONS This evaluation set offers a comprehensive methodology to enable understanding of how PCMH transformation occurs in different practice settings. This approach can foster insights about how transformation affects critical outcomes to achieve meaningful, patient-centered, high-quality, and cost-effective sustainable change among diverse primary care practices.",
keywords = "Context, Evaluation, Mixed methods, Patient-centered medical home, Practice transformation, Qualitative methods, Quantitative methods",
author = "Goldman, {Roberta E.} and Donna Parker and Joanna Brown and Judith Walker and Eaton, {Charles B.} and Borkan, {Jeffrey M.}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1370/afm.1765",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "168--175",
journal = "Annals of Family Medicine",
issn = "1544-1709",
publisher = "Annals of Family Medicine, Inc",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recommendations for a mixed methods approach to evaluating the Patient-Centered medical home

AU - Goldman, Roberta E.

AU - Parker, Donna

AU - Brown, Joanna

AU - Walker, Judith

AU - Eaton, Charles B.

AU - Borkan, Jeffrey M.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - PURPOSE There is a strong push in the United States to evaluate whether the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model produces desired results. The explanatory and contextually based questions of how and why PCMH succeeds in different practice settings are often neglected. We report the development of a comprehensive, mixed qualitative-quantitative evaluation set for researchers, policy makers, and clinician groups. METHODS To develop an evaluation set, the Brown Primary Care Transformation Initiative convened a multidisciplinary group of PCMH experts, reviewed the PCMH literature and evaluation strategies, developed key domains for evaluation, and selected or created methods and measures for inclusion. RESULTS The measures and methods in the evaluation set (survey instruments, PCMH meta-measures, patient outcomes, quality measures, qualitative interviews, participant observation, and process evaluation) are meant to be used together. PCMH evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to assess and explain both the context of transformation in different primary care practices and the experiences of diverse stakeholders. In addition to commonly assessed patient outcomes, quality, and cost, it is critical to include PCMH components integral to practice culture transformation: patient and family centeredness, authentic patient activation, mutual trust among practice employees and patients, and transparency, joy, and collaboration in delivering and receiving care in a changing environment. CONCLUSIONS This evaluation set offers a comprehensive methodology to enable understanding of how PCMH transformation occurs in different practice settings. This approach can foster insights about how transformation affects critical outcomes to achieve meaningful, patient-centered, high-quality, and cost-effective sustainable change among diverse primary care practices.

AB - PURPOSE There is a strong push in the United States to evaluate whether the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model produces desired results. The explanatory and contextually based questions of how and why PCMH succeeds in different practice settings are often neglected. We report the development of a comprehensive, mixed qualitative-quantitative evaluation set for researchers, policy makers, and clinician groups. METHODS To develop an evaluation set, the Brown Primary Care Transformation Initiative convened a multidisciplinary group of PCMH experts, reviewed the PCMH literature and evaluation strategies, developed key domains for evaluation, and selected or created methods and measures for inclusion. RESULTS The measures and methods in the evaluation set (survey instruments, PCMH meta-measures, patient outcomes, quality measures, qualitative interviews, participant observation, and process evaluation) are meant to be used together. PCMH evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to assess and explain both the context of transformation in different primary care practices and the experiences of diverse stakeholders. In addition to commonly assessed patient outcomes, quality, and cost, it is critical to include PCMH components integral to practice culture transformation: patient and family centeredness, authentic patient activation, mutual trust among practice employees and patients, and transparency, joy, and collaboration in delivering and receiving care in a changing environment. CONCLUSIONS This evaluation set offers a comprehensive methodology to enable understanding of how PCMH transformation occurs in different practice settings. This approach can foster insights about how transformation affects critical outcomes to achieve meaningful, patient-centered, high-quality, and cost-effective sustainable change among diverse primary care practices.

KW - Context

KW - Evaluation

KW - Mixed methods

KW - Patient-centered medical home

KW - Practice transformation

KW - Qualitative methods

KW - Quantitative methods

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924294608&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924294608&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1370/afm.1765

DO - 10.1370/afm.1765

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 168

EP - 175

JO - Annals of Family Medicine

JF - Annals of Family Medicine

SN - 1544-1709

IS - 2

ER -