ABSTRACT:The growing number of persons suffering from major chronic illnesses face many obstacles in coping with their condition, not least of which is medical care that often does not meet their needs for effective clinical management, psychological support, and information. The primary reason for this may be the mismatch between their needs and care delivery systems largely designed for acute illness. Evidence of effective system changes that improve chronic care is mounting. We have tried to summarize this evidence in the Chronic Care Model (CCM) to guide quality improvement. In this paper we describe the CCM, its use in intensive quality improvement activities with more than 100 health care organizations, and insights gained in the process.T he number of persons with chronic illness is growing at an astonishing rate because of the rapid aging of the population and the greater longevity of persons with many chronic conditions. Fortunately, the effectiveness of care of major chronic illnesses such as hypertension, congestive heart failure, depression, and diabetes has been enhanced by much recent progress in clinical and behavioral interventions. But many persons receiving care for these conditions are not reaping the benefits of these advances. For example, recent surveys suggest that fewer than half of U.S. patients with hypertension, depression, diabetes, and asthma are receiving appropriate treatment.Why is care for chronic conditions so deficient? A recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report attributes the quality gap to (1) the in-

Usual medical care often fails to meet the needs of chronically ill patients, even in managed, integrated delivery systems. The medical literature suggests strategies to improve outcomes in these patients. Effective interventions tend to fall into one of five areas: the use of evidence-based, planned care; reorganization of practice systems and provider roles; improved patient self-management support; increased access to expertise; and greater availability of clinical information. The challenge is to organize these components into an integrated system of chronic illness care. Whether this can be done most efficiently and effectively in primary care practice rather than requiring specialized systems of care remains unanswered.

Developed more than a decade ago, the Chronic Care Model (CCM) is a widely adopted approach to improving ambulatory care that has guided clinical quality initiatives in the United States and around the world. We examine the evidence of the CCM's effectiveness by reviewing articles published since 2000 that used one of five key CCM papers as a reference. Accumulated evidence appears to support the CCM as an integrated framework to guide practice redesign. Although work remains to be done in areas such as cost-effectiveness, these studies suggest that redesigning care using the CCM leads to improved patient care and better health outcomes.

Health outcomes for patients with major chronic illnesses depend on the appropriate use of proven pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic technologies, and effective self-management by patients. Effective chronic illness care then bases clinical decisions on the best, rigorous scientific evidence, or evidence-based medicine. Effective support for patient self-management includes efforts to increase patient participation in care and collaborative goal-setting and planning of treatment. These interventions appear somewhat consistent with recent conceptualizations of patient-centered care. The consistent delivery of proven therapies and information and support for self-management requires practice systems organized for that purpose. The Chronic Care Model is a compilation of those practice system changes shown to improve chronic care. This paper explores the concept of patient-centeredness and its relationship to the Chronic Care Model. We conclude that the Model is both evidence-based and patient-centered and that these can be properties of health systems, and not just of individual practitioners.

No abstract

BackgroundTeam-based care is now recognized as an essential feature of high quality primary care, but there is limited empiric evidence to guide practice transformation. The purpose of this paper is to describe advances in the configuration and deployment of practice teams based on in-depth study of 30 primary care practices viewed as innovators in team-based care.MethodsAs part of LEAP, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, primary care experts nominated 227 innovative primary care practices. We selected 30 practices for intensive study through review of practice descriptive and performance data. Each practice hosted a 3-day site visit between August, 2012 and September, 2013, where specific advances in team configuration and roles were noted. Advances were identified by site visitors and confirmed at a meeting involving representatives from each of the 30 practices.ResultsLEAP practices have expanded the roles of existing staff and added new personnel to provide the person power and skills needed to perform the tasks and functions expected of a patient-centered medical home (PCMH). LEAP practice teams generally include a rich array of staff, especially registered nurses (RNs), behavioral health specialists, and lay health workers. Most LEAP practices organize their staff into core teams, which are built around partnerships between providers and specific Medical Assistants (MAs), and often include registered nurses (RNs) and others such as health coaches or receptionists. MAs, RNs, and other staff are heavily involved in the planning and delivery of preventive and chronic illness care. The care of more complex patients is supported by behavioral health specialists, RN care managers, and pharmacists. Standing orders and protocols enable staff to act independently.ConclusionsThe 30 LEAP practices engage health professional and lay staff in patient care to the maximum extent, which enables the practices to meet the expectations of a PCMH and helps free up providers to focus on tasks that only they can perform.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-017-0590-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Organizations can use this framework to enhance and strengthen provider engagement efforts to do less of what potentially harms and more of what truly helps patients.

No abstract