The Facilitators and Barriers Associated with Implementation of a Patient-Centered Medical Home in VHA

Published in: Implementation Science, v. 11, no. 1, Feb. 2016, p. 1-9

Posted on on March 02, 2016

by Christian D. Helfrich, Philip W. Sylling, Randall C. Gale, David C. Mohr, Susan Stockdale, Sandra Joos, Elizabeth D. Brown, David Grembowski, Steven M. Asch, Stephan D. Fihn, et al.

Read More

Access further information on this document at Implementation Science

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Research Question

  1. What helps or hinders the implementation of a patient-centered medical home (team-based, comprehensive primary care)?

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a team-based, comprehensive model of primary care. When effectively implemented, PCMH is associated with higher patient satisfaction, lower staff burnout, and lower hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. However, less is known about what factors contribute to (or hinder) PCMH implementation. We explored the associations of specific facilitators and barriers reported by primary care employees with a previously validated, clinic-level measure of PCMH implementation, the Patient Aligned Care Team Implementation Progress Index (Pi2). METHODS: We used a 2012 survey of primary care employees in the Veterans Health Administration to perform cross-sectional, respondent-level multinomial regressions. The dependent variable was the Pi2 categorized as high implementation (top decile, 54 clinics, 235 respondents), medium implementation (middle eight deciles, 547 clinics, 4537 respondents), and low implementation (lowest decile, 42 clinics, 297 respondents) among primary care clinics. The independent variables were ordinal survey items rating 19 barriers to patient-centered care and 10 facilitators of PCMH implementation. For facilitators, we explored clinic Pi2 score decile both as a function of respondent-reported availability of facilitators and of rating of facilitator helpfulness. RESULTS: The availability of five facilitators was associated with higher odds of a respondent's clinic's Pi2 scores being in the highest versus lowest decile: teamlet huddles (OR = 3.91), measurement tools (OR = 3.47), regular team meetings (OR = 2.88), information systems (OR = 2.42), and disease registries (OR = 2.01). The helpfulness of four facilitators was associated with higher odds of a respondent's clinic's Pi2 scores being in the highest versus lowest decile. Six barriers were associated with significantly higher odds of a respondent's clinic's Pi2 scores being in the lowest versus highest decile, with the strongest associations for the difficulty recruiting and retaining providers (OR = 2.37) and non-provider clinicians (OR = 2.17). Results for medium versus low Pi2 score clinics were similar, with fewer, smaller significant associations, all in the expected direction. CONCLUSIONS: A number of specific barriers and facilitators were associated with PCMH implementation, notably recruitment and retention of clinicians, team huddles, and local education. These findings can guide future research, and may help healthcare policy makers and leaders decide where to focus attention and limited resources.

Key Findings

  • Facilitators of PCMH implementation included factors related to infrastructure (disease registries, ability to recruit and retain employees) and process (team meetings and local PCMH education sessions).
  • The main barrier to implementation was ability to recruit and retain personnel (clinicians and non-clinicians). Other barriers regarding electronic health records were reported, but were not associated with the clinic's implementation score.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.