Tag Archives: PCMH

Satisfaction With Provider Communication In Recent Study Is Lower In Patient Center-Medical Homes (PCMH) Than Non-PCMH

A recent blog headline on the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative (PCPCC) recently caught my attention. It was entitled Patient Satisfaction With Medical Home Quality High. I was intrigued. I asked myself high compared to what? Non-PCMH practices?

The study, which appeared in the November-December 2013 Annals of Family Medicine, asked 4,500 patients (2009 Health Center Patient Survey) of federally-support health centers their perceptions of a number of “patient-centered quality attributes,” including the following measures which the study authors defined as patient-centered communication:

  • Clinician staff listened to you?
  • Clinician staff takes enough time with you?
  • Clinician staff explains what you want to know
  • Nurses and MAs answered your questions?
  • Nurses and MAs are friendly and helpful to you?
  • Other staff is friendly and helpful to you?
  • Other staff answered your questions?

Observations About The Study

The first thing that struck me was that compared to patients in the 2012 CHAPS survey (AHRQ) website, patients in the 2009 study actually reported lower levels of 1) patient satisfaction (81% versus 91%) with their clinicians’ patient-centered attributes (including communication) and 2) willingness to recommend their providers (84% versus 89%).

The second thing I was reminded of is that patients themselves are so used to clinicians’ paternalistic, physician-directed communication style that simply allowing them to ask just one question puts the clinician in the top 5% of patient-centered communicators. Stop and ask yourself when the last time was that you encountered a physician that asked you what you thought about your medical condition? Until recently I never have been and I suspect few if any people in the study cited here have either.

[pullquote]Stop and ask yourself when the last time was that you encountered a physician that asked you what you thought about your medical condition? [/pullquote]

The final thing that struck me was that none of the quality measures used in the study captured the “essential and revolutionary meaning of what it means to be patient-centered.” As Street and Epstein point out, patient centered communication is about inviting the patient to get involved in the exam room conversation.

As articulated in hundreds of studies over the years, patient-centered communication skills include:

  • Soliciting the patient’s story
  • Visit agenda setting
  • Understanding the patient’s health perspective
  • Understanding the whole patient (biomedical and psychosocial)
  • Shared decision-making
  • Empathy

We Need To Raise The Bar For Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMH)

Studies like the one cited here set the quality bar (and bragging rights) way too low for PCMH. Patient-centered care has to be different than the paternalistic, physician-directed care we all seem so willing to accept. Such studies trivialize what it means for physicians and their care teams to be patient-centered in the way they relate to and communicate with people (aka patients). Patient-centeredness is a philosophy or care…and does not require team care, extended hours or care coordinators. These are great added features, but to equate such services with patient-centeredness misses the boat…something which professional groups like the PCPCC, NCQA, Joint Commission, and URAC should recognize by now.

The Take Away?

Here’s some thoughts:

1) We need to set the bar higher for PCMHs when it comes to how we define and measure patient-centered communication.

2) We need to find better ways to asses patient-centered communications in actual practice. Patient rating of a clinician’s patiient-centeredness are simply not enough. As part of the 2014 Adopt One! Challenge, we will be using audio recording of actual physician-patient exam room conversations to measure and benchmark clinicians’ patient-centered communication skills.

3) We should stop celebrating being average whether it be in PCMH setting or hospitals when it comes to physician-patient communications.
That what I think. What’s your opinion?

Sources:

Lebrun-Harris et al. Effects of Patient-Centered Medical Home Attributes On Patient’s Perception Of Quality In Federaly-Supported Health Centers. Annals of Family Medicine. 2013; 11:6; 508-516.
Street et al. The Value and Values of Patient-Centered Care. Annals of Family Medicine. 2011; 9; 100-103.

The Lack Of Patient-Centered Communication Skills By Physicians in Your Provider Network Will Limit Your PCMH & ACO Performance

 

Betting the Ranch on your physician patient communication skills

Patient-Centered Medical Homes Need To Become More “Patient-Centered”

A recent study in Medical Care about Horizon BCBS’s Medical Home pilot reminded me of the expression a “house does not make a home.”   Or in this case how building a medical house to the spec (as laid out 3rd parties like NCQA and JACHO)  is not the same as building a medical home that is truly patient-centered .   As it turns out, researchers involved in the Horizon study claimed not to have found any significant differences between PCMH practices and non-PCMH practices.

spec houseDon’t get me wrong, my hat is off to the thousands upon thousands of primary care practices from New Jersey to Hawaii that have put in long hours going the extra mile to become recognized as Patient Centered Medical Homes.  Due to the efforts of these first generation PCMH pioneers, and their health plan partners, millions of people now have unprecedented access to primary care physicians providing:

  • AdoptOneBigButtonPhysician-led team care
  • Electronic records (EMR/Registry)
  • Embedded care coordinators
  • PHRs and web portals

Yes, many of the PCMH pilots, now into their 4th or 5th year, are showing promising results with reported reductions in ER visits, hospitalizations and 30-day hospital readmissions.  These pilots are also reporting improvements in HEDIS-related quality indicators.

But while team care, care coordination and EMRs may increase practice efficiency, there is nothing inherently patient-centered about these “things.”

That’s because patient-centered care is a philosophy of care delivery…not simply a punch list of HIT and staffing requirements.  Crossing the Quality Chasm defines patient-centered care as “respectful of and responsive (where practicable) to individual patient preferences, needs, and values”; or as Berwick is quoted as saying, “nothing about me (the patient) without me.” Patient-centered care occurs between people – not things – and manifests itself in the way the clinician and patient talk with and relate to one another, e.g. patient-centered communications.

With all the attention placed on building out the HIT and staffing infrastructure,  this first generation of PCMH pilots, with some notable exceptions, has lost sight of the most what makes a medical house and patient-centered medical home – notably the relationship between the patient and the clinician, beginning with the quality of clinicians’ patient-centered communication skills.

Yes, many accredited PCMH’s have patient advisory boards and conduct patient satisfaction surveys.   But as researchers like Street and Epstein have suggested,  relying just on patients’ impressions and ratings of “patient-centeredness” may provide false reassurance given that many patients have never experienced anything but suboptimal care and physicians that employ a paternalistic, decidedly un-patient-centered style of talking to patients.  (Until recently, I myself had never encountered a real patient-centered physician).

As I discussed in an earlier post, the majority of physicians today employ a paternalistic, physician-directed style of communicating with patients.   As such, there is no evidence to suggest that the patient communication skills of physicians practicing in accredited PCMHs are any more patient-centered that their counter parts in traditional practices.

Based upon the literature, what is absent in this first generation of PCMH pilots is any serious, systematic attention given to assessing and/or improving the quality of the patient-centered communication skills of physicians and their care teams.   This oversight is worth noting since the benefits expected by policy makers and underwriters of PCMHs and ACOs under health care reform have been linked in the research to the strong patient-centered communications and not HIT, team care and care coordinators.

Why Is This Important If PCMH Pilots Are Reporting Positive Outcomes?  

The early saving being reported by many PCMH pilots may well represent the “low hanging fruit.” This is not an unreasonable supposition given that most physician practices have never had EMRs, care coordinators, or team care prior to the PCMH pilots.  As is so often the case, within a short few years, this low hanging fruit will disappear.

But there is another way. Thirty years of research has demonstrated the benefits of patient-centered communications when it comes to increased productivity, greater patient engagement; better outcomes, lower health care use/cost and superior patient experiences.

Going forward, PCMHs, ACOs and their sponsors will need to look past HIT and team care to the quality of their patient-centered communication skills if they are to assume the role envisioned for them under health care reform.

That’s my opinion…what’s yours?

Note:  Later this Summer, Mind the Gap will be announcing the Adopt One! Challenge TM. for physicians and their care teams.  The goal of the challenge is to encourage physicians and their care teams to adopt one new patient-centered communication skill within 2014. 

Sign-up to learn more about this one-of-a-kind “Challenge”:

Sources:

Epstein RM, Fiscella K, Lesser CS, Stange KC.  Why the nation needs
a policy push on patient-centered health care. Health Affairs. 2010;29(8):1489-1495.

Ming Tai-Seale, et al.  Recognition as a Patient-Centered Medical Home: Fundamental or Incidental? Annals of Family Medicine. 2013;11:S14-S18.

Street, R., et al.  The Values and Value of Patient-Centered
Care.  Annals of Family Medicine.  2011;9:100-103.

Thoughts On Patient Engagement, Patient-Centeredness and Communication-Centered Medical Records

Sometimes I come across a post that I absolutely must share… such is the case with this re-print of a post by Rob Lamberts, MD, a primary care physician practicing “somewhere in the southeastern United States.” He blogs regularly at More Musings (of a Distractible Kind), where this post first appeared.

“Patient engagement.”

What is “Patient Engagement?”  It sounds like a season of “The Bachelor” where a doctor dates hot patients.  It wouldn’t surprise me if it was. After all, patient engagement is hot; it’s the new buzz phrase for health wonks.  There was even an entire day at the recent HIMSS conference dedicated to “Patient engagement.”  I think the next season of “The Bachelor” should feature a wonk at HIMSS looking for a wonkettes to love.

Here’s how the Internets define “Patient engagement”:

  • The Get Well Network (with a smiley face) calls it: “A national health priority and a core strategy for performance improvement.”
  • Leonard Kish refers to it as “The Blockbuster Drug of the Century” (it narrowly beat out Viagra) – HT to Dave Chase.
  • Steve Wilkins refers to it as “The Holy Grail of Health Care” (it also narrowly beat out Viagra) – HT to Kevin MD.
  • On the HIMSS Patient Engagement Day, the following topics were discussed:
    • How to make Patients Your Partners in Satisfying Meaningful Use Stage 2 Objectives; Case Studies in Patient Engagement, session #64;
    • Review Business Cases for Implementing a Patient-Centered Communication Strategy and Building Patient 2.0, session #84;: and
    • Engaging People in Health Through Consumer-Facing Devices and Tools, session #102.

So then, “patient engagement” is:

  • a strategy
  • a drug
  • a grail (although I already have a grail)
  • a “meaningful use” objective
  • something that requires a business case
  • something that requires “consumer-facing devices and tools” (I already have one of those too).

I hope that clears things up.

So why am I being so snarky about this?  Why make fun of a term used by many people I trust and respect?  I was recently discussing my ideas on a communication-centered medical record with a colleague.  At the end of my pontification, my friend agreed, saying: “you are right; communication is an important part of health care.”  I surprised him by disagreeing.  Communication isn’t important to health care, communication is health care. Care is not a static thing, it is the transaction of ideas. The patient tells me what is going on, I listen, I share my thoughts with the patient (and other providers), and the patient uses the result of this transaction for their own benefit.

But our fine system doesn’t embrace this definition.  We indict ourselves when we talk about “patient engagement” as if it’s a goal, as it reveals the current state of disengagement .  Patients are not the center of care.  Patients are a source of data so doctors can get “meaningful use” checks.  Patients are the proof that our organizations are accountable.  Patients live in our “patient-centered” medical homes.

Replacing patients as the object of our attention (and affection) is our dear friend, the medical record.  We faun over medical records.  Companies earn epic profits from medical records.  We hold huge conferences to celebrate medical records.  We charge patients money to get to see their own medical records.  We even build special booths (portals) where patients are allowed to peer in through a peep hole and see parts of their medical records.

This is why I’ve had such a hard time finding a record system for my new practice.  I want my IT to center on patients, but medical record systems are self-absorbed.  They are an end in themselves.  They are all about making records, not engaging patients.  They are for the storage of ideas, not the transfer of them.  Asking medical records to engage patients is like asking a dictionary to tell a story.

The problem is, documentation has taken over health care.  Just as the practice of a religion can overshadow its purpose: the search for God, documentation chokes out the heart of health care: the communication of ideas .  It did this because we are paid to document, not communicate.  Communication takes time and it is not reimbursed.  Communication prevents unnecessary care, which is a revenue stream.  Communication eliminates waste, and waste is food that feeds the system, the bricks that build the wings to hospitals, the revenue source that pads IT budgets.

So what’s a doctor to do?  I’m not sure.  I am still looking for a solution that will meet the central goals of my practice:

  • Communication – health care is a hassle,  with communication relegated to the exam room.  I want care to be easily accessible for my patients,using IT in one of its strongest areas: tools for easy communication.
  • Collaboration – the patient should be engaged, but in a two-way relationship.  This means they not only should have access to their records, they should contribute to those records.
  • Organization – I want a calendar documenting visits, symptoms, problems, medications, past and future events in each patient’s record.  I also want a task-management system I share with patients to make sure care gets done.
  • Education – I want to practice high-quality medicine, care that is informed by good information and the best evidence.  Why not do a yearly stress test?  There’s evidence for that.  Why not use antibiotics for sinus infections?  There’s evidence there.  Why use an ACE inhibitor to control the blood pressure?  I need to be able to support my recommendations with data, not just “because the doctor said so.”

The point of all of this is the moving of medicine from an industry where money is milked from disease to a communications network where diseases are prevented.  ”Patient engagement” that is done to the patient for the sake of the doctor or hospital is a sham.  Engagement is about interaction, listening, and learning in relationship to another person.  Engagement is not a strategy, it is care.

If only I could find the tools to make this happen.

Shared Decision Making – Not Ready For Prime Time – Nor Evidently Is Patient-Centered Care

When it comes to delivering truly patient-centered care…how are providers supposed to know when they have “arrived”?   According to Michael Berry, MD, President of the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, providers will know they have achieved the “pinnacle of patient-centered care” when they routinely engage their patients in shared decision-making (SDM).

Pinnicle of patient-centered communications

In theory, shared decision-making (aka collaborative decision-making) is what is supposed to happen between patients and their doctors when faced with a difficult choice.  Clinicians engaging in shared decision-making would provide patients with information pertaining to the need for the treatment, the available options, as well as the benefits and risks.  But patient-centered clinicians would also do something else. They would attempt to work with patients to arrive at a decision they could both live with.  A kind of “shared mind” that takes into consideration their clinical perspective as well as the patient’s perspective – their preferences, needs, and values (which ideally have been captured over the course of the patient-provider relationship).

The Problem Is That Most Physicians Don’t Really Engage Patients In Either Shared Decision Making  

 A 2003 study surveyed U.S. physicians (N=1,217) preferences and actual practices regarding shared decision-making.  Table 1 presents a summary of findings from this study.

Table 1

Decision Making Style

What Physicians Preferred

What Physicians Actually Do

Shared decision-making

58%

37%

Physician-dominant decision-making

28%

43%

No patient involvement

9%

13%

Patient dominant decision-making

5%

7%

While most physicians in the study may philosophically believe in and prefer shared decision-making…as this data indicates that is not what most physicians in the study reported actually doing.  In fact, 56% of physicians reported that they actually engaged in decision-making that was physician-dominated (with some patient involvement) or totally physician-dominated decision-making behavior (absent any patient involvement).

The Barriers To Shared Decision Making?

The barriers to SDM include the usual suspects:

  •  Lack of time during the visit
  • Not having access to the right decision support aids tools and training their use
  • Physician attitudes about patient’s willingness to engage in shared decision-making
  • Provider reliance upon a physician-directed (versus patient-centered) style of communicating with patients

AdoptOneBigButtonThe Take Away – Why Shared Decision Making Matters

  •  SDM is the right thing to do – the benefits associated with SDM include better outcomes, lower utilization and cost, lower malpractice risk and enhanced patient trust and satisfaction
  •  SDM is a great way to be engaging to patients – it is a way to get patients involved in their care in a meaningful way they can relate to.
  • To be eligible to participate in Medicare’s Shared Savings Program, Accountable Care Organizations must implement processes to promote patient engagement, including shared decision-making.

As readers of Mind the Gap know, I am a proponent of the adoption of patient-centered communication by providers, beginning with primary care.   Shared decision-making has rightly been identified as a leading indicator when it comes to assessing the “patient-centeredness’ of a physician practice.   So before you go around telling everyone how patient-centered your provider teams are first do a reality check.  Because if you aren’t regularly engaging your patients in shared decision making you are not there yet.

That’s my opinion…what’s your?

Sources:

Heisler, M. et al. Physicians’ participatory decision-making and quality of diabetes care processes and outcomes: results from the triad study. Chronic Illness. 2009 Sep;5(3):165-76

Street, R. et al  The importance of communication in collaborative decision making: facilitating shared mind and the management of uncertainty. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17 (2011) 579–584.

Frosch, D., et al. An Effort To Spread Decision Aids In Five California Primary Care Practices Yielded Low Distribution, Highlighting Hurdles. Health Affairs. 32, no.2 (2013):311-320.