Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
NewsFamily Medicine UpdatesF

THE PATIENT-CENTERED MEDICAL HOME: A DISCUSSION AT NAPCRG 2008

Larry Green
The Annals of Family Medicine March 2009, 7 (2) 183-184; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.974
Larry Green
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

During the 2008 NAPCRG Annual Meeting, a facilitated open forum was held to discuss opportunities and concerns deriving from the contemporary interest in the United States in establishing the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), with a particular focus on important researchable questions. The PCMH was presented as a metaphor for redesigning the delivery of primary care. Several participants were recruited in advance to express opinions to stimulate discussion by the group. Three listeners noted comments on flip charts from which this summary was developed.

Some participants noted favorable reactions to the metaphor of the home, where, as Robert Frost penned, “they have to take you in.” The national alignment of purchasers and payers with primary care clinicians to develop the medical home was seen as creating newsworthy, positive movement toward enhanced primary care, something quite different from “business as usual.” The potential transformative effects of becoming patient centered were emphasized, including: elevating this notion to the national policy scene; involving families, teams, and communities in caring for patients who are actively involved in their own care; and tapping into consumerism with patients sharing decisions and making choices. Learning how to fully incorporate all the elements of the PCMH was seen as a rich academic opportunity to use multiple scientific methods to understand effects and to teach learners how to work together on behalf of all the people through/in the PCMH.

There was apprehension that the PCMH remains “in the belly of the beast”—not radical enough to escape from old “medical” models and provider-centeredness into the concepts of health and community linkage. Transforming primary care practice is very hard; it involves more than doing a few quality improvement cycles. Underlying genuine practice transformation are hidden assumptions and fears about primary care, physicians, values, and expectations that have not been sufficiently exposed; these threaten progress, possibly resulting in the PCMH becoming another passing fad. There is much ignorance—about how to actually achieve the attributes and functions of the PCMH and about how to measure the existence and performance of the PCMH—making sweeping claims and over-promising inadvisable. Balancing legitimate professional prerogatives, commercial interests, use of new technologies, and roles among patients and teams is very challenging. Mis-positioning the PCMH as a miracle that will solve conflicting interests could condemn the PCMH to not succeeding sufficiently to please anyone. Broader system changes, particularly financing arrangements, are necessary for the PCMH to work properly, and these are beyond the control of primary care, threaten powerful interests, and, thus, there is no guarantee that such changes will occur.

Not surprisingly for a group of investigators, many important issues were quickly identified, ranging from very specific questions to much broader topics representing possible programs of research:

  • What IS a PCMH?

  • What are its proper metrics?

  • Does the PCMH make care more effective, efficient, equitable, safe, timely, and/or patient-centered?

  • What are the effects of the PCMH on: trust, healing relationships, patient-oriented results, prioritization of care?

  • What are the effects of the PCMH on: understanding primary care, other health care enterprises, student and clinician interest in primary care, work-force requirements, scopes of practice for various health care givers, practice size, liability?

  • What are the effects of the PCMH at different levels: individual, small groups, local community, system, society?

  • What are the best ways to transform an existing practice to be a PCMH and to start a new practice aspiring to be a PCMH?

  • What training is necessary to prepare people to work in the PCMH and for people to fully use the PCMH?

  • What are the natural experiments now emerging that should be compared?

  • How can patient-centeredness be operationalized to become routine reality?

  • What are the effects of scale on the PCMH, specifically small vs larger practices?

  • What constitutes comprehensiveness, how can it be measured, and what are the effects of its presence or absence?

  • What current legal and regulatory requirements enable and impede the PCMH?

  • What are the critical technologies of the PCMH?

  • What motivates different constituencies to change?

  • What are the number and levels of ways to engage patients?

  • What are the proper relationships among the PCMH, mental health, and public health?

  • Does improving various proposed parts of the PCMH improve the whole?

  • Which technologies help and which hinder the PCMH?

  • What influences corrupt the PCMH as envisioned?

  • What was useful and unuseful in initial National Center for Quality Assurance (NCQA) measures of the PCMH?

  • What constitutes the PCMH team, what is the irreducible minimum and the optimum configuration, and how do health care workers learn to collaborate effectively?

  • How long does it take to make the transformative change from past practice to the PCMH?

  • What are the key linkages between the PCMH and the community in which it resides?

  • What professional rivalries and political developments helped and hurt the development and implementation of the PCMH?

  • What are the best approaches to paying for the PCMH?

  • What practical techniques and skills enable “fixing the bike, while riding it?”

  • What are the expected effects of modeling different approaches to the PCMH?

  • What does history teach us about how the PCMH is likely to evolve?

  • What could and should be the proper role of government in the PCMH?

  • What should the name of the PCMH be?

The discussion was arbitrarily limited to 70 minutes and concluded with participants having further ideas and suggestions not expressed. Thus, this recounting is only a partial listing of what was an invigorating moment of sharing hopes, concerns, and investigative opportunities by a forthcoming convenience sample of the 2008 NAPCRG attendees.

Acknowledgments

Richard Deyo, Ron Epstein, Rebecca Etz, Marji Gold, Carlos Jaen, Mark Johnson, Ardis Olson, Jim Puffer, and Diane Rittenhouse volunteered to initiate this discussion with brief personal remarks. Robert Graham, Will Miller, and Kurt Stange manned the flip charts and uttered not a word. Larry Green organized and lightly facilitated the discussion.

  • © 2009 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 7 (2)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 7 (2)
Vol. 7, Issue 2
1 Mar 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
THE PATIENT-CENTERED MEDICAL HOME: A DISCUSSION AT NAPCRG 2008
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 10 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
THE PATIENT-CENTERED MEDICAL HOME: A DISCUSSION AT NAPCRG 2008
Larry Green
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2009, 7 (2) 183-184; DOI: 10.1370/afm.974

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
THE PATIENT-CENTERED MEDICAL HOME: A DISCUSSION AT NAPCRG 2008
Larry Green
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2009, 7 (2) 183-184; DOI: 10.1370/afm.974
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Acknowledgments
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Core Outcomes of Residency Training 2022 (Provisional)
  • AAFP Issues New Clinical Practice Guideline on Hypertension
  • Family Medicine Advances Transition to Competency-Based Education
Show more Family Medicine Updates

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine