Using a Theoretical Framework to Inform Implementation of the Patient-centred Medical Home (PCMH) Model in Primary Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Systematic Review

Author(s):  
Deniza Mazevska ◽  
Jim Pearse ◽  
Stephanie Tierney

Abstract Background: The patient centred-medical home (PCMH) was conceived to address problems that primary care practices around the world are facing, particularly in managing the increasing numbers of patients with multiple chronic diseases. The problems include fragmentation, lack of access and poor coordination. The PCMH is a complex intervention combining high-quality primary care with evidence-based disease management. Becoming a PCMH takes time and resources, and there is a lack of empirically informed guidance for practices. Previous reviews of PCMH implementation have identified barriers and enablers but failed to analyse the complex relationships between factors involved in implementation. Using a theoretical framework can help with this, giving a better understanding of how and why interventions work or do not work. This review will aim to refine an existing theoretical framework for implementing organisational change – the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) – to apply to the implementation of the PCMH in primary care.Methods: We will use the ‘best fit’ framework approach to synthesise evidence for implementing the PCMH in primary care. We will analyse evidence from empirical studies against CFIR constructs. Where studies have identified barriers and enablers to implementing the PCMH not represented in the CFIR constructs, we will use thematic analysis to develop additional constructs to refine the CFIR. Searches will be undertaken in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection (including Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index) and CINAHL. Gaps arising from the database search will be addressed through snowballing, citation tracking and review of reference lists of systematic reviews of the PCMH. We will accept qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary research studies published in peer-reviewed publications. A stakeholder group will provide input to the review.Discussion: The review will result in a refined theoretical framework that can be used by primary care practices to guide implementation of the PCMH. Narrative accompanying the refined framework will explain how the constructs (existing and added) work together to successfully implement the PCMH in primary care. The unpopulated CFIR constructs will be used to identify where further primary research may be needed.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021235960

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (7) ◽  
pp. 723-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grant R. Martsolf ◽  
Ryan Kandrack ◽  
Robert A. Gabbay ◽  
Mark W. Friedberg

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 131 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. S. Zickafoose ◽  
S. J. Clark ◽  
J. W. Sakshaug ◽  
L. M. Chen ◽  
J. M. Hollingsworth

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleida Ringwald ◽  
Katja Goetz ◽  
Jost Steinhaeuser ◽  
Nina Fleischmann ◽  
Alexandra Schüssler ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Continuity of care is associated with many benefits for patients and health care systems. Therefore measuring care coordination - the deliberate organization of patient care activities between two or more participants - is especially needed to identify entries for improvement. The aim of this study was the translation and cultural adaptation of the Medical Home Care Coordination Survey (MHCCS) into German, and the examination of the psychometric properties of the resulting German versions of the MHCCS-P (patient version) and MHCCS-H (healthcare team version). Methods We conducted a paper-based, cross-sectional survey in primary care practices in three German federal states (Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Baden-Württemberg) with patients and health care team members from May 2018 to April 2019. Descriptive item analysis, factor analysis, internal consistency and convergent, discriminant and predictive validity of the German instrument versions were calculated by using SPSS 25.0 (Inc., IBM). Results Response rates were 43% (n = 350) for patients and 34% (n = 141) for healthcare team members. In total, 300 patient questionnaires and 140 team member questionnaires could be included into further analysis. Exploratory factor analyses resulted in three domains in the MHCCS-D-P and seven domains in the MHCCS-D-H: “link to community resources”, “communication”, “care transitions”, and additionally “self-management”, “accountability”, “information technology for quality assurance”, and “information technology supporting patient care” for the MHCCS-D-H. The domains showed acceptable and good internal consistency (α = 0.838 to α = 0.936 for the MHCCS-D-P and α = 0.680 to α = 0.819 for the MHCCS-D-H). As 77% of patients (n = 232) and 63% of health care team members denied to have or make written care plans, items regarding the “plan of care” of the original MHCCS have been removed from the MHCCS-D. Conclusions The German versions of the Medical Home Care Coordination Survey for patients and healthcare team members are reliable instruments in measuring the care coordination in German primary care practices. Practicability is high since the total number of items is low (9 for patients and 27 for team members).


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 767-774 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Gimm ◽  
J. Want ◽  
D. Hough ◽  
T. Polk ◽  
M. Rodan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document