scholarly journals The Shared Principles of Primary Care: A Multistakeholder Initiative to Find a Common Voice

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-184
Author(s):  
Ted Epperly ◽  
Christine Bechtel ◽  
Rosemarie Sweeney ◽  
Ann Greiner ◽  
Kevin Grumbach ◽  
...  

As America’s health care system continues to transform, the foundational importance of primary care becomes more clear. The Joint Principles of the Patient Centered Medical Home are now more than a decade old. As delivery reform continues, the importance of seven essential shared principles have emerged from a dynamic, collaborative, and iterative process of consensus building across multiple stakeholders. These seven principles will help the public, policy makers, payers, physicians, and other clinical providers speak with a unified voice about these core principles that define the enduring essence and value of primary care. The seven shared principles of primary care consist of: (1) person and family centered, (2) continuous, (3) comprehensive and equitable, (4) team based and collaborative, (5) coordinated and integrated, (6) accessible, and (7) high value. When used together, these shared principles provide a solid platform on which to build all further health care reform.

Author(s):  
Colleen Conry ◽  
Shandra Brown Levy ◽  
Bonnie T. Jortberg

The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) involves an organizing set of principles for the delivery of primary care that has become widely accepted by primary care medical associations, policymakers, businesses, and insurance companies. The PCMH places the patient at the center of the delivery of care. One physician directs the patient’s care. The PCMH emphasizes a whole-person orientation and coordinated care, including integration of physical health with behavioral health. Care is coordinated across the health care system. Use of a PCMH enhances access to medical care and ensures quality and safety. This chapter reviews the history of the PCMH and discusses joint principles of the PCMH; models of care, space, and payment; and the newer concept of the “medical neighborhood.”


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 580-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fadya El Rayess ◽  
Roberta Goldman ◽  
Christopher Furey ◽  
Rabin Chandran ◽  
Arnold R. Goldberg ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Background The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is an accepted framework for delivering high-quality primary care, prompting many residencies to transform their practices into PCMHs. Few studies have assessed the impact of these changes on residents' and faculty members' PCMH attitudes, knowledge, and skills. The family medicine program at Brown University achieved Level 3 PCMH accreditation in 2010, with training relying primarily on situated learning through immersion in PCMH practice, supplemented by didactics and a few focused clinical activities. Objective To assess PCMH knowledge and attitudes after Level 3 PCMH accreditation and to identify additional educational needs. Methods We used a qualitative approach, with semistructured, individual interviews with 12 of the program's 13 postgraduate year 3 residents and 17 of 19 core faculty. Questions assessed PCMH knowledge, attitudes, and preparedness for practicing, teaching, and leading within a PCMH. Interviews were analyzed using the immersion/crystallization method. Results Residents and faculty generally had positive attitudes toward PCMH. However, many expressed concerns that they lacked specific PCMH knowledge, and felt inadequately prepared to implement PCMH principles into their future practice or teaching. Some exceptions were faculty and resident leaders who were actively involved in the PCMH transformation. Barriers included lack of time and central roles in PCMH activities. Conclusions Practicing in a certified PCMH training program, with passive PCMH roles and supplemental didactics, appears inadequate in preparing residents and faculty for practice or teaching in a PCMH. Purposeful curricular design and evaluation, with faculty development, may be needed to prepare the future leaders of primary care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 675 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Lane

This article provides an overview of the elements necessary to build a sustainable research data infrastructure. I argue that it needs the financial and intellectual engagement of a community of practice. Most attention has been paid to researchers and policy-makers, but a third group—government programmatic agencies—must be a focal point since they act as both data producers and as policy implementers. I also discuss possible business models that are both consistent with serving the needs of multiple stakeholders and that are not completely dependent on the largesse of the public purse.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document