ArticlePsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2013
A comparison of assertive community treatment fidelity measures and patient-centered medical home standards.
Article in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Informatics Systems and Tools to Facilitate Patient-centered Care Coordination.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study compared program measures of assertive community treatment (ACT) with standards of accreditation for the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) to determine whether there were similarities in the infrastructure of the two methods of service delivery and whether high-fidelity ACT teams would qualify for medical home accreditation. METHODS The authors compared National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH standards with two ACT fidelity measures (the Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale and the Tool for Measurement of Assertive Community Treatment [TMACT]) and with national ACT program standards. RESULTS PCMH standards pertaining to enhanced access and continuity, management of care, and self-care support demonstrated strong overlap across ACT measures. Standards for identification and management of populations, care coordination and follow-up, and quality improvement demonstrated less overlap. The TMACT and the program standards had sufficient overlap to score in the range of a level 1 PCMH, but no ACT measure sufficiently detailed methods of population-based screening and tracking of referrals to satisfy "must-pass" elements of the standards. CONCLUSIONS ACT measures and medical home standards had significant overlap in innate infrastructure. ACT teams following the program standards or undergoing TMACT fidelity review could have the necessary infrastructure to serve as medical homes if they were properly equipped to supervise general medical care and administer activities to improve management of chronic diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.