Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38784429›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of accountable care2017

Tools to Gauge Progress During Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation.

Denise D Quigley, Zachary S Predmore, Ron D Hays

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of accountable care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Denise D QuigleyRAND Corporation (DDQ), Santa Monica, CA; RAND Corporation (ZSP), Boston, MA; Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles (RDH), Los Angeles, CA.
Zachary S PredmoreRAND Corporation (DDQ), Santa Monica, CA; RAND Corporation (ZSP), Boston, MA; Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles (RDH), Los Angeles, CA.
Ron D HaysRAND Corporation (DDQ), Santa Monica, CA; RAND Corporation (ZSP), Boston, MA; Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles (RDH), Los Angeles, CA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS U18 HS016980
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

designLiterature search and review of tools to evaluate PCMH "medical homeness" and track progress toward practice transformation.

methodsWe 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.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionsThere 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.

Identifiers

PMID38784429
PMCPMC11113621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.