Defining and Measuring the Patient-Centered Medical Home

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is four things: 1) the fundamental tenets of primary care: first contact access, comprehensiveness, integration/coordination, and relationships involving sustained partnership; 2) new ways of organizing practice; 3) development of practices’ internal capabilities, and 4) related health care system and reimbursement changes. All of these are focused on improving the health of whole people, families, communities and populations, and on increasing the value of healthcare

Randomised Trial to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Impact of Offering Postvisit Decision Support and Assistance in Obtaining Physician-Recommended Colorectal Cancer Screening: The e-Assist: Colon Health Study - A Protocol Study

INTRODUCTION: How to provide practice-integrated decision support to patients remains a challenge. We are testing the effectiveness of a practice-integrated programme targeting patients with a physician recommendation for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In partnership with healthcare teams, we developed \u27e-assist: Colon Health\u27, a patient-targeted, postvisit CRC screening decision support programme. The programme is housed within an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded patient portal. It leverages a physician screening recommendation as the cue to action and uses the portal to enrol and intervene with patients. Programme content complements patient-physician discussions by encouraging screening, addressing common questions and assisting with barrier removal. For evaluation, we are using a randomised trial in which patients are randomised to receive e-assist: Colon Health or one of two controls (usual care plus or usual care). Trial participants are average-risk, aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening and received a physician order for stool testing or colonoscopy. Effectiveness will be evaluated by comparing screening use, as documented in the EHR, between trial enrollees in the e-assist: Colon Health and usual care plus (CRC screening information receipt) groups. Secondary outcomes include patient-perceived benefits of, barriers to and support for CRC screening and patient-reported CRC screening intent. The usual care group will be used to estimate screening use without intervention and programme impact at the population level. Differences in outcomes by study arm will be estimated with hierarchical logit models where patients are nested within physicians. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All trial aspects have been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the health system in which the trial is being conducted. We will disseminate findings in diverse scientific venues and will target clinical and quality improvement audiences via other venues. The intervention could serve as a model for filling the gap between physician recommendations and patient action. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02798224; Pre-results

Are there valid proxy measures of clinical behaviour?

Background: Accurate measures of health professionals' clinical practice are critically important to guide health policy decisions, as well as for professional self-evaluation and for research-based investigation of clinical practice and process of care. It is often not feasible or ethical to measure behaviour through direct observation, and rigorous behavioural measures are difficult and costly to use. The aim of this review was to identify the current evidence relating to the relationships between proxy measures and direct measures of clinical behaviour. In particular, the accuracy of medical record review, clinician self-reported and patient-reported behaviour was assessed relative to directly observed behaviour. Methods: We searched: PsycINFO; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; science/social science citation index; Current contents (social & behavioural med/clinical med); ISI conference proceedings; and Index to Theses. Inclusion criteria: empirical, quantitative studies; and examining clinical behaviours. An independent, direct measure of behaviour (by standardised patient, other trained observer or by video/audio recording) was considered the 'gold standard' for comparison. Proxy measures of behaviour included: retrospective self-report; patient-report; or chart-review. All titles, abstracts, and full text articles retrieved by electronic searching were screened for inclusion and abstracted independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer where necessary. Results: Fifteen reports originating from 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The method of direct measurement was by standardised patient in six reports, trained observer in three reports, and audio/video recording in six reports. Multiple proxy measures of behaviour were compared in five of 15 reports. Only four of 15 reports used appropriate statistical methods to compare measures. Some direct measures failed to meet our validity criteria. The accuracy of patient report and chart review as proxy measures varied considerably across a wide range of clinical actions. The evidence for clinician self-report was inconclusive. Conclusion: Valid measures of clinical behaviour are of fundamental importance to accurately identify gaps in care delivery, improve quality of care, and ultimately to improve patient care. However, the evidence base for three commonly used proxy measures of clinicians' behaviour is very limited. Further research is needed to better establish the methods of development, application, and analysis for a range of both direct and proxy measures of behaviour

Physician Practice Patterns and Variation in the Delivery of Preventive Services

BACKGROUND: Strategies to improve preventive services delivery (PSD) have yielded modest effects. A multidimensional approach that examines distinctive configurations of physician attributes, practice processes, and contextual factors may be informative in understanding delivery of this important form of care. OBJECTIVE: We identified naturally occurring configurations of physician practice characteristics (PPCs) and assessed their association with PSD, including variation within configurations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-eight family physicians in 84 community practices and 4,046 outpatient visits. MEASUREMENTS: Physician knowledge, attitudes, use of tools and staff, and practice patterns were assessed by ethnographic and survey methods. PSD was assessed using direct observation of the visit and medical record review. Cluster analysis identified unique configurations of PPCs. A priori hypotheses of the configurations likely to perform the best on PSD were tested using a multilevel random effects model. RESULTS: Six distinct PPC configurations were identified. Although PSD significantly differed across configurations, mean differences between configurations with the lowest and highest PSD were small (i.e., 3.4, 7.7, and 10.8 points for health behavior counseling, screening, and immunizations, respectively, on a 100-point scale). Hypotheses were not confirmed. Considerable variation of PSD rates within configurations was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Similar rates of PSD can be attained through diverse physician practice configurations. Significant within-configuration variation may reflect dynamic interactions between PPCs as well as between these characteristics and the contexts in which physicians function. Striving for a single ideal configuration may be less valuable for improving PSD than understanding and leveraging existing characteristics within primary care practices

Compassion: a scoping review of the healthcare literature

BACKGROUND: Recent concerns about suboptimal patient care and a lack of compassion have prompted policymakers to question the preparedness of clinicians for the challenging environment in which they practice. Compassionate care is expected by patients and is a professional obligation of clinicians; however, little is known about the state of research on clinical compassion. The purpose of this scoping review was to map the literature on compassion in clinical healthcare. METHODS: Searches of eight electronic databases and the grey literature were conducted to identify empirical studies published over the last 25 years. Eligible studies explored perceptions or interventions of compassionate care in clinical populations, healthcare professionals, and healthcare students. Following the title and abstract review, two reviewers independently screened full-texts articles, and extracted study data. A narrative approach to synthesizing and mapping the literature was used. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of 36,637 records, 648 studies were retrieved and 44 studies were included in the review. Less than one third of studies included patients. Six themes emerged from studies that explored perceptions of compassionate care: nature of compassion, development of compassion, interpersonal factors related to compassion, action and practical compassion, barriers and enablers of compassion, and outcomes of compassion. Intervention studies included two compassionate care trials with patients and eight educational programs that aimed to improve compassionate care in clinicians and students. CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies the limited empirical understanding of compassion in healthcare, highlighting the lack of patient and family voices in compassion research. A deeper understanding of the key behaviors and attitudes that lead to improved patient-reported outcomes through compassionate care is necessary

Time Spent in Face-to-Face Patient Care and Work Outside the Examination Room

PURPOSE Contrary to physicians’ concerns that face-to-face patient time is decreasing, data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) indicate that between 1988 and 1998, durations of primary care outpatient visits have increased. This study documented how physicians spend time during the workday, including time outside the examination room, and compared observed face-to-face patient care time with that reported in NAMCS. METHODS Using time-motion study techniques, for each of 11 physicians, 2 patient care days were randomly selected and documented by direct observation. Physician time spent on face-to-face patient care and 54 activities outside the examination room were documented. Data represent 12,180 minutes of work and 611 outpatient visits. RESULTS The average workday duration was 8.6 hours, and face-to-face patient care accounted for 55% of the day. Work outside the examination room relevant to a patient currently being seen averaged 14% of the day. Work related to a patient not physically present accounted for one fifth (23%) of the workday. The combination of face-to-face time and time spent on visit-specific work outside the examination room assessed by direct observation was significantly less than the 2003 NAMCS estimate of visit duration assessed by physician report (13.3 vs 18.7 minutes, P <.001). CONCLUSIONS Nearly one half of a primary care physician’s workday is spent on activities outside the examination room, predominately focused on follow-up and documentation of care for patients not physically present. National estimates of visit duration overestimate the combination of face-to-face time and time spent on visit-specific work outside the examination room by 41%

Assessing the accuracy of patient report of the 5As (ask, assess, advise, assist, and arrange) for smoking cessation counseling

Objective: The 5As framework (ask, advise, assess, assist, arrange) is a recommended strategy for smoking cessation counseling in primary care. This study compares patient report with direct observation to assess the degree of recall bias for each of the 5As. Methods: Primary care visits by 107 adult smokers and 16 physicians were audio-recorded. Within 48 hours after the visit, patients completed a survey assessing whether or not smoking was discussed and items specific to each of the 5As. The audio recordings were evaluated to assess the presence of each A. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of patient report versus direct observation were computed. Results: The frequency of the 5As based on evaluation of the audio recording ranged from 13% (arrange) to 98% (ask). The sensitivity and specificity of patient report were 92% and not applicable for ask, 90% and 50% for assess, 94% and 33% for advise, 90% and 50% for assist, and 85% and 67% for arrange follow-up. Positive predictive values ranged from 28% to 98%; negative predictive values ranged from 0% to 97%. Conclusion: Compared with the gold standard of direct observation, patient report of each of the 5As is reasonably sensitive but not specific. Patients overreport the occurrence of each of the 5As