Volume 53 | Number 4 | August 2018

Abstract List

Peter Mendel Ph.D., Emily K. Chen Ph.D., Harold D. Green Ph.D., Courtney Armstrong M.P.H., Justin W. Timbie Ph.D., Amii M. Kress Ph.D., Mark W. Friedberg M.D.,M.P.P., Katherine L. Kahn M.D.


To understand the process of practice transformation by identifying pathways for attaining patient‐centered medical home () recognition.

Data Sources/Study Setting

The Federally Qualified Health Center () Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration was designed to help s achieve Level 3 recognition and improve patient outcomes. We used a stratified random sample of 20 (out of 503) participating sites for this analysis.

Study Design

We developed a conceptual model of structural, cultural, and implementation factors affecting transformation based on literature and initial qualitative interview themes. We then used conventional cross‐case analysis, followed by qualitative comparative analysis (), a cross‐case method based on Boolean logic algorithms, to systematically identify pathways (i.e., combinations of factors) associated with attaining—or not attaining—Level 3 recognition.

Data Collection Methods

Site‐level indicators were derived from semistructured interviews with site leaders at two points in time (mid‐ and late‐implementation) and administrative data collected prior to and during the demonstration period.

Principal Findings

The results identified five distinct pathways to attaining recognition and four distinct pathways to not attaining recognition by the end of the demonstration. Across these pathways, one condition (change leader capacity) was common to all pathways for attaining recognition, and another (previous improvement or recognition experience) was absent in all pathways for not attaining recognition. In general, sites could compensate for deficiencies in one factor with capacity in others, but they needed a threshold of strengths in cultural and implementation factors to attain recognition.


Future efforts at primary care transformation should take into account multiple pathways sites may pursue. Sites should be assessed on key cultural and implementation factors, in addition to structural components, in order to differentiate interventions and technical assistance.