The Impact of Patient Centered Care Promoting Chronic

Conditions Management for Older People

Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:

https://medipdf.com/product/the-impact-of-patient-centered-care-promoting-chroni
c-conditions-management-for-older-people/

Click Download Now

Hailun Liang
Renmin University of China
Beijing, China

ISBN 978-981-16-3967-8 ISBN 978-981-16-3968-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3968-5

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
About This Book

The world has experienced a demographic change in the distribution of population

toward older ages. At the same time, the global burden of disease is shifting from
infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases. Chronic conditions are the leading
cause of death and disability globally. The objective of this study is to investigate the
impact of patient-centered care (PCC) for older adults with chronic conditions and
to add evidence of its effects on the process of care and health outcomes.
Our study reveals significant associations between the status of the PCC and the
receipt of preventive care services, cancer care as well as perceiving good health
status. The elderly chronic disease patients who have the PCC were more likely to
receive preventive screenings and health education and to perceive good physical and
mental health status. Our findings suggest that the PCC demonstrates the potential
to improve preventive care delivery and health outcomes for the vulnerable older
adults with chronic conditions. This work was supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (grant number: 71804183).

v
Contents

1 Backgroud of Patient-Centered Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Significance of Patient-Centered Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Overview of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Theoretical Foundation of Patient-Centered Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Definitions and Attributes of Patient-Centered Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 Conceptual Framework of Patient-Centered Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1 Conceptual Framework of Patient-Centered Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 National Accreditation and Recognition PCMH Programs . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 States’ PCMH Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4 Other PCC Interventions and Associated Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.5 The Evaluation of Patient-Centered Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5.1 The Core Areas of PCC Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5.2 Evaluation Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.5.3 Main Data Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4 Patient-Centered Care and Elderly Healthcare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1 Patient-Centered Care on Older Adults with Chronic
Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Conceptual Framework for Evluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Study Aims and Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3.1 Study Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3.2 Specific Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3.3 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4 Data and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4.1 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4.2 Sample Size and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4.3 Strategies for Addressing Missing Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

vii
viii Contents

4.5 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.5.1 Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.5.2 Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.5.3 Covariates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.6 Sample Weights and Variance Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.7 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5 The Impact of Patient-Centered Care on Preventive Service . . . . . . . . 51
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.2 Demographic and Institutional Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.3 Bivariate Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.4 Multivariate Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.4.1 Multivariate Analysis: PCC Status Associated
with Preventive Screening and Health Education . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.4.2 PCC Attributes Associated with Receiving Preventive
Screening and Health Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6 The Impact of Patient-Centered Care on Healthcare Outcomes . . . . . 75
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.2 Bivariate Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.3 Multivariate Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.3.1 Multivariate Analysis: PCC Status Associated
with Health Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.3.2 Multivariate Analysis: PCC Attributes Associated
with Health Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7 The Patient-Centered Care on Cancer Prevention
and Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.2 The Patient-Centered Oncology Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
7.3 Evidence Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
7.4 Evidence on the Patient-Centered Oncology Care
on Healthcare Utilization and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7.5 The Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care on Healthcare
Utilization and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
7.6 Practice Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
8 Policy Implications and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
8.2 Summary of the Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
8.3 Discussions of Findings and Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
8.3.1 Discussion for the Aim 1: Patient-Centered Care
and Preventive Care Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Contents ix

8.3.2 Discussion for the Aim 2: Patient-Centered Care

and Health Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
8.4 Overall Impact of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
8.4.1 The Implications for Older Adults with Chronic
Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
8.4.2 Implications from the Comparison Between Our
Findings with Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
8.4.3 The Generalizability of the Research Findings
and Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
8.5 Study Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Acronyms

AAAHC Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Healthcare

AAFP American Academy of Family Physicians
AAP American Academy of Pediatrics
ACA Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
ACP American College of Physicians
ADLs Activities of Daily Living
AHRQ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
AOA American Osteopathic Association
BPHC Bureau of Primary Health Care
CAPI Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing
CCM Chronic Care Model
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
CPT Current Procedural Terminology
EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis
EHR Electronic Medical Record
FQHC Federally Qualified Health Centers
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
HIE Health Information Exchange
HRSA Health Resources Services Administration
IADLs Instrumental Activities of Daily Living
IAPO International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations
IOM Institute of Medicine
IT Information Technology
MEPS Medical Expenditure Panel Survey
NCQA National Committee for Quality Assurance
NHIS National Health Interview Survey
OR Odds Ratio
PCC Patient-Centered Care
PCMH Patient-Centered Medical Home
PSUs Primary Sampling Units
SES Socioeconomic Status
xi
xii Acronyms

URAC Utilization Review Accreditation Committee

USC Usual Source of Care
USPSTF U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
VHA Veterans Health Administration
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Conceptual framework of the study. Source Donabedian

(1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Fig. 4.2 Analytic samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Fig. 7.1 Conceptual framework for patient-centered oncology care.
Note The framework is adapted from the Joint Principles
of the PCMH (PCPPC, 2012), and Wender and Altshuler
(2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Fig. 7.2 Screening process for the eligible studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Fig. 7.3 Forest plot of effect sizes of ED visit. Note 1.
A random-effects meta-analysis was used to incorporate
heterogeneity among studies. 2. The direction of effect:
the negative results indicate that an intervention works
in reducing ER visits. 3. Colligan et al. (2017a, 2017b) were
associated with the community oncology medical home
(COME HOME) model; Goyal et al. (2014) and Kohler
et al. (2015) were associated with the PCMH program
of Community Care of North Carolina (CCNC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Fig. 7.4 Funnel plot of effect sizes of ED visits. Note Results
of the Egger’s test: t = 0.288, p = 0.80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Fig. 7.5 Forest plot of effect sizes of hospitalizations. Note 1.
A random-effects meta-analysis was used to incorporate
heterogeneity among studies. 2. The direction of effect:
the negative results indicate that an intervention works
in reducing hospitalizations. 3. Colligan et al. (2017a,
2017b) were associated with the community oncology
medical home (COME HOME) model; Goyal et al. (2014)
and Kohler et al. (2015) were associated with the PCMH
program of Community Care of North Carolina (CCNC) . . . . . . . 100
Fig. 7.6 Funnel plot of effect sizes of hospitalizations. Note Results
of the Egger’s test: t = 0.835, p = 0.491 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

xiii
List of Tables

Table 2.1 Overview of definitions, core components and features

of patient-centered care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 2.2 Attributes of patient-centered care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 3.1 Features of national accreditation and recognition programs . . . 20
Table 3.2 Summary of PCC interventions in empirical studies . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 4.1 Sample frames by year and by panel, MEPS 2009–2013 . . . . . . 35
Table 4.2 Sensitivity analyses: weighted analytic samples compared
to excluded samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 4.3 MEPS items used for measuring patient-centered care
attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 4.4 Factor loading of patient-centered care measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 4.5 Patient-centered care status and samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 4.6 Description and inclusion criteria for each screening
measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 4.7 Description for each covariate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 4.8 Weighted dependent variables by year, 2009–2013 . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 5.1 Sociodemographic and health characteristics: 2009–2013
US Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population Age 65
and above with chronic condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 5.2 Preventive care and health education rates: comparisons
between patient-centered care patients and non
patient-centered care patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Table 5.3 Multivariate analysis of correlates of preventive care
and health education rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Table 5.4 Multivariate analysis of correlates of PCC attributes
with preventive care and health education rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 6.1 Multivariate analysis of correlates of health status
and adverse utilization events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Table 6.2 Multivariate analysis of correlates of PCC attributes
with health status and adverse event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

xv
xvi List of Tables

Table 6.3 Health status and adverse events: comparisons

between patient-centered care patients and non
patient-centered care patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 7.1 Study characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Chapter 1
Backgroud of Patient-Centered Care

1.1 Background

Chronic conditions are the leading cause of death and disability in the United States
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013), and also the major contributor
to the growth of healthcare spending (Gerteis et al., 2014; Paez et al., 2009). As
of 2012, about half of all adults—117 million people—had one or more chronic
health conditions. One of four adults had two or more chronic health conditions
(Ward et al., 2014). Chronic illnesses are conditions that last a year or more and
require ongoing medical attention and/or limit activities of daily living (Warshaw,
2006), for example, arthritis, asthma, chronic respiratory conditions, diabetes, heart
disease, human immunodeficiency virus infection, and hypertension. In addition to
these physical medical conditions, chronic conditions also comprise conditions such
as substance use addictions, dementia and other cognitive disorders and disabilities.
In terms of the rate of multiple chronic conditions, the prevalence is raised with
the age increasing, and is considerably higher among older adults. The risks, such
as unnecessary hospitalizations, duplicative medication, conflicting medical advice,
impairment functional status and mortality, are also raised with the increasing number
of chronic conditions that a patient has (Anderson, 2010; Lee, et al., 2007; Vogeli,
et al., 2007; Warshaw, 2006; Wolff, et al., 2002). This situation is even more compli-
cated when the synergistic interactions occur due to the combinations of multiple
conditions, for example, the co-occurrences of serious mental illnesses with serious
medical illness (Wolff, et al., 2002).
At the same time, the required resources for chronic conditions management are
enormous. In term of Medicare program, the increased spending on managing chronic
diseases has become one of the key factors that drive the overall medical expense
growth (Thorpe et al., 2010). Patients with chronic conditions are facing considerable
challenges related to higher costs in prescription drugs and total out-of-pocket costs
(Anderson, 2010).
In addition, the combined impact of population aging seriously increase the chal-
lenges of managing chronic conditions among the burgeoning population. Although

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 1

H. Liang, The Impact of Patient-Centered Care,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3968-5_1
2 1 Backgroud of Patient-Centered Care

evaluations on quality and cost of chronic care have been carried out, insufficient
attention has been paid to the older adults to meet longer-term needs of those with
chronic conditions.

1.2 Significance of Patient-Centered Care

The greatest challenge in healthcare is to provide optimal care for older adults with
chronic conditions and comorbidities. Older adults with chronic conditions are very
heterogeneous in health status, disease severity, treatment options, prognosis and risk
of adverse events (Boyd & Fortin, 2011; Boyd et al., 2005; Institute of Medicine,
2001). Existing literature suggests that the optimal management of chronic conditions
depends highly on active involvement of the patients (Holman & Lorig, 2000; Tsai
et al., 2010). The concept of patient-centered care (PCC) has become an essential
component in the healthcare sector since the 1950s (Bauman et al., 2003). PCC is
principally described as an effective approach to deliver care that meets the specific
needs, values, and beliefs of patients (Institute of Medicine, 2001). A significant
increase in its popularity starts to emerge over the past 15 years, presumably because
primary care systems are seeking solutions to the cope with the challenges from the
population aging and significant burden of chronic conditons.
In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) joined with the Amer-
ican Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American College of Physicians
(ACP), and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) relased the Joint Principles
of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH or medical home), which is gener-
ally described as a model or philosophy of patient-centered care, that encourages
providers and care teams to meet patients where they are, from the most simple to the
most complex conditions (AAFP et al., 2007; Patient-Centered Primary Care Collab-
orative, 2009). Additionally, the PCMH model focuses on chronic condtion manage-
ment, shared decision making with patients, enhanced access, and coordination with
community-based services (Weedon et al., 2012).
The PCMH draws on principles from the well-known Wagner’s Chronic Care
Model (CCM), which highlights self-management support, decision support, delivery
system design, clinical information systems, healthcare organization, and community
resources (Bodenheimer et al., 2002; Coleman et al., 2009; Wagner et al., 1996a,
1996b, 1999, 2001). By applying CCM, PCC has become a widely accepted model
that direct the delivery of high-quality and safe care targeted to address the increasing
health demands of aging population with chronic conditions (Luxford et al., 2010).
Although PCC has been theoretically conceived being able to overcome current
challenges from fragmentation and poor coordination of care, it is unclear whether
the model is appropriate for deliveing chronic care to aged patients with high-risk
or complex healthcare needs. Futher investigations are need to tailor PCC model
according to the needs of specific patient population, the nature of their diseases, and
other predisposing or enabling factors (Stevens et al., 2010).
1.2 Significance of Patient-Centered Care 3

There is growing interest in exploring the impact of PCC on various outcomes,

but little is known about its effectiveness for delivering chronic care to older adultes.
It is unclear which attributes of PCC are required for aging population’s chronic care
and whether the model will enhance patient perceived satisfaction, health outcomes,
safety, and efficiency (Boult & Wieland, 2010).

1.3 Overview of the Book

The objective of this book is to investigate the impact of PCC for older adults with
chronic conditions, and to add evidence of its effects on patient’s experiences, process
of care, and health outcomes. The specific aims of this book are to: (1) assess the
association between the receipt of PCC and chronic disease management among
older adults, measured by the receipt of preventive screening and health education
for chronic diseases, as well as cancer care; and (2) assess the association between the
receipt of PCC and chronic disease health outcomes among older adults, measured
by patient perceived health status and incidence of adverse utilization events.
In pursing the aims, this book evaluates the associations between the receipt of
PCC and healthcare process as well as outcome measures. This book is organized
into nine chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction and background to the
book. It describes briefly the background and the rationale of conducting this study.
The second chapter investigates the theoretical foundation of PCC. Chapter Three
describes the conceptual framework of PCC. Chapter Four reports PCC and elderly
healthcare. Chapter Five, Six and Seven investigate the impact of PCC on Preventive
Services Provision, health outcomes and oncology care. Chapter Eight and Nine
summarizes the policy implications, discussions and conclusions of this work.

References

American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Amer-
ican College of Physicians (ACP), et al. (2007). Joint principles of the patient-centered medical
home. Accessed on January 8, 2016. Available at: www.aafp.org/online/etc/medialib/aafp_org/
documents/policy/fed/jointprinciplespcmh0207.Par.0001.File.dat/022107medicalhome.pdf.
Anderson G. (2010). Chronic care: making the case for ongoing care. Accessed on January 8, 2016.
Available at: http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/50968chronic.care.chartbook.pdf.
Bauman, A. E., Fardy, H. J., & Harris, P. G. (2003). Getting it right: Why bother with patient-centred
care? Medical Journal of Australia, 179(5), 253–256.
Bodenheimer, T., Wagner, E. H., & Grumbach, K. (2002). Improving primary care for patients with
chronic illness: The chronic care model, Part 2. JAMA, 288(15), 1909–1914.
Boult, C., & Wieland, G. D. (2010). Comprehensive primary care for older patients with multiple
chronic conditions: “Nobody rushes you through” . JAMA, 304(17), 1936–1943.
Boyd, C. M., Darer, J., Boult, C., Fried, L. P., Boult, L., & Wu, A. W. (2005). Clinical practice
guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: Implications
for pay for performance. JAMA, 294(6), 716–724.
4 1 Backgroud of Patient-Centered Care

Boyd, C. M., & Fortin, M. (2011). Future of multimorbidity research: How should understanding
of multimorbidity inform health system design? Public Health Reviews, 32, 451–474.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013a). Summary Health Statistics for the U.S. Popu-
lation: National Health Interview Survey, 2012. Accessed on January 8, 2016. Available at: http://
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_259.pdf.
Coleman, K., Austin, B. T., Brach, C., & Wagner, E. H. (2009). Evidence on the chronic care model
in the new millennium. Health Affairs (Millwood), 28(1), 75–85.
Gerteis, J., Izrael, D., et al. (2014). Multiple chronic conditions chartbook. Accessed on January
8, 2016. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/professionals/prevention-
chronic-care/decision/mcc/mccchartbook.pdf.
Holman, H., & Lorig, K. (2000). Patients as partners in managing chronic disease. Partnership is a
prerequisite for effective and efficient health care. BMJ, 320(7234), 526–527.
Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century.
Accessed on January 8, 2016. Available at: www.nap.edu/.../quality_chasm/reportbrief.pdf.
Lee, T. A., Shields, A. E., Vogeli, C., Gibson, T. B., Woong-Sohn, M., Marder, W. D., Blumenthal,
D., & Weiss, K. B. (2007). Mortality rate in veterans with multiple chronic conditions. Journal
of General Internal Medicine, 22(Suppl 3), 403–407.
Luxford, K., Piper, D., Dunbar, N., & Poole, N. (2010). Patient-centered care: Improving quality
and safety by focusing care on patients and consumers—Discussion paper. Accessed on January
8, 2016. Available at: http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/PCCC-
DiscussPaper.pdf.
Paez, K. A., Zhao, L., & Hwang, W. (2009). Rising out-of-pocket spending for chronic conditions:
A ten-year trend. Health Affairs (Millwood), 28(1), 15–25.
Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative. (2009). Proof in practice. A compilation of patient
centered medical home pilot and demonstration projects. Accessed on January 8, 2016. Available
at: https://www.pcpcc.org/sites/default/files/media/PilotGuidePip.pdf.
Stevens, G. D., Pickering, T. A., & Laqui, S. A. (2010). Relationship of medical home quality
with school engagement and after-school participation among children with asthma. Journal of
Asthma, 47(9), 1001–1010.
Thorpe, K. E., Ogden, L. L., & Galactionova, K. (2010). Chronic conditions account for rise in
Medicare spending from 1987 to 2006. Health Affairs (Millwood), 29(4), 718–724.
Tsai, J., Shi, L., Yu, W. L., & Lebrun, L. A. (2010). Usual source of care and the quality of medical
care experiences: A cross-sectional survey of patients from a Taiwanese community. Medical
Care, 48(7), 628–634.
Vogeli, C., Shields, A. E., Lee, T. A., Gibson, T. B., Marder, W. D., Weiss, K. B., & Blumenthal,
D. (2007). Multiple chronic conditions: Prevalence, health consequences, and implications for
quality, care management, and costs. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(Suppl 3), 391–395.
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., & Von Korff, M. (1996a). Improving outcomes in chronic illness.
Managed Care Quarterly, 4(2), 12–25.
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., & Von Korff, M. (1996b). Organizing care for patients with chronic
illness. Milbank Quarterly, 74(4), 511–544.
Wagner, E. H., Davis, C., Schaefer, J., Von Korff, M., & Austin, B. (1999). A survey of leading
chronic disease management programs: Are they consistent with the literature? Managed Care
Quarterly, 7(3), 56–66.
Wagner, E. H., Glasgow, R. E., Davis, C., Bonomi, A. E., Provost, L., McCulloch, D., Carver, P.,
& Sixta, C. (2001). Quality improvement in chronic illness care: A collaborative approach. Joint
Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 27(2), 63–80.
Warshaw, G. (2006). Introduction: Advances and challenges in care of older people with chronic
illness. Generation, 30(3), 5–10.
Ward, B. W., Schiller, J. S., & Goodman, R. A. (2014). Multiple chronic conditions among US
adults: A 2012 update. Preventing Chronic Disease, 11, E62.
References 5

Weedon, D., Carbone, P., Bilder, D., O’Brien, S., & Dorius, J. (2012). Building a person-centered
medical home: Lessons from a program for people with developmental disabilities. Journal of
Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 23(4), 1600–1608.
Wolff, J. L., Starfield, B., & Anderson, G. (2002). Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of
multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162(20), 2269–2276.
Chapter 2
Theoretical Foundation
of Patient-Centered Care

2.1 Definitions and Attributes of Patient-Centered Care

The concept of PCC has become an essetial component in the healthcare sector
since the 1950s (Bauman et al., 2003). A significant increase in its popularity starts
to emerge over the past 15 years, presumably because primary care systems are
seeking solutions to the cope with the challenges from the population aging and
significant burden of chronic conditons. PCC is pricipally described as an effective
approach to deliver care that meets the specific needs, values, and beliefs of patients
(Institute of Medicine, 2001). PCC has become a widely accepted model that direct
the delivery of high-quality and safe care targeted to address the increasing health
demands of aging population with chronic conditions (Luxford et al., 2010).
The IOM defines PCC as healthcare that establishes a partnership among prac-
titioners, patients, and their families (when appropriate) to ensure that decisions
respect patients’ wants, needs, and preferences and that patients have the education
and support they need to make decisions and participate in their own care (Institute
of Medicine, 2001). Based on this definition, Alliance for Home Health Quality and
Innovation summarized the definition into four core components as “whole person”
care, comprehensive communication and coordination, patient support and empow-
erment, and ready access (Alliance for Home Health Quality and Innovation, 2013).
In 2002, to help patients and their healthcare providers make better decisions, the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) defined the PCC as follows:
patients become active participants in their own care and receive services designed
to focus on their individual needs and preferences, in addition to advice and counsel
from health professionals. They also developed a series of tools to help determine
treatment preferences (AHRQ, 2002). The International Alliance of Patients’ Orga-
nizations (IAPO) states that the essence of patient-centered healthcare is that the
healthcare system is designed and delivered to address the healthcare needs and pref-
erences of patients so that healthcare is appropriate and cost-effective. The IAPO’s
declaration sets out five principles of patient-centered healthcare: respect; choice
and empowerment; patient involvement in health policy; access and support and

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 7

H. Liang, The Impact of Patient-Centered Care,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3968-5_2