Beyond checkboxes: A qualitative assessment of physicians' experiences providing care in a patient‐centred medical home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The patient-centred medical home (PCMH) is an innovative approach to health care reform. Despite a well-established process for recognizing PCMH practices, fidelity to, and/or adaptation of, the PCMH model can limit health care and population health improvements. This study explored the connection between fidelity/adaptation to the PCMH model with implementation successes and challenges through the experiences of family and internal medicine PCMH physicians. METHODS: Interviews were conducted at two academic PCMH clinics with faculty and resident physicians. Data were transcribed and coded on the basis of an a priori code list. Together, the authors reviewed text and furthered the analysis process to reach final interpretation of the data. RESULTS: Ten faculty and nine resident physicians from the Family Care Centre (FCC; n = 11) and the Internal Medicine Clinic (IMC; n = 8) were interviewed. Both FCC and IMC physicians spoke positively about their clinic's adherence to the PCMH model of enhanced access to care, coordinated/integrated care, and improvements in quality and safety through data collection and documentation. However, physicians highlighted inadequate staffing and clinic hours. FCC physicians also discussed the challenge of providing high-quality care amidst differences in coverage between payers. CONCLUSION: There remains significant variability in PCMH characteristics across the United States and Canada. This qualitative analysis uncovered factors contributing to fidelity/adaptation to the PCMH model in two academic PCMH clinics. For the PCMH to achieve the Triple Aim promise of improved patient health and experience at a reduced cost, policy must support fidelity to core elements of the PCMH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".