Integration of Waiting Room "Know Your Rights" Education into Medical Care of Immigrant Patients in a Federally Qualified Health Center: A Case Study.

Background: Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are implementing innovative interventions to address heightened anxieties of immigrant patients amid changing immigration policies. Purpose: To describe the integration of "Know Your Rights" legal rights education in clinic waiting rooms of an FQHC in Los Angeles, California. Methods: This is a qualitative study using key informant interviews, direct field observations, and document review. Results: Collaboration with community health workers and local immigrant-serving community-based and legal organizations was key to intervention design and implementation. Conclusion: Integrating legal education into medical care is one action health centers can take to support immigrant patients, address their complex realities, and optimize patients.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Health System Interventions Aiming to Welcome and Protect Immigrant Patients: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: At the same time that federal policymakers have enforced restrictive immigration policies, healthcare systems across the USA are developing, and have implemented, interventions aimed at addressing immigration-related stressors faced by immigrant communities. Yet, little is known about the contextual determinants that influence their implementation success. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this study identifies factors enabling or challenging the implementation of interventions aimed at mitigating immigration-related stressors in the healthcare context. METHODS: We used a qualitative research design to conduct 38 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in implementation of interventions at 25 healthcare facilities across 5 states with the highest undocumented immigrant populations (California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois). Interviews were conducted from May through August 2018. Constant comparative analysis was used to identify barrier and facilitator themes. Deductive coding was thereafter used to categorize themes according to CFIR domain. RESULTS: Barriers to implementation included perceptions of legal complexity and challenges to adopting such systemic strategies. Facilitators included a national policy climate that had brought immigrant health to the forefront, allowing for leveraging momentum towards institutional change; communication among healthcare personnel; existing community partnerships with immigrant rights and service organizations; and a shared sense of mission centering health equity. Local variation in immigration-related policies (e.g., local law agencies enforcing federal immigration laws) and heterogeneity of local immigrant communities also impacted implementation. Champions and informal leaders were integral to institutional efforts but not sufficient for sustainability. Perceived urgency to act superseded evaluation considerations, with all interventions in initial phases of implementation. Future iterations and evaluations of these interventions are needed to establish best practices and implementation determinants. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic study describing implementation determinants of immigration-related interventions across health systems. Identifying these determinants provides guidance to other healthcare organizations to effectively strategize and ensure implementation success.

Assessment of Perspectives on Health Care System Efforts to Mitigate Perceived Risks Among Immigrants in the United States: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Increases in the enforcement of immigration policies, deportations, and rhetoric critical of immigration during and after the 2016 US presidential election have been associated with a decrease in health-seeking behaviors and an increase in adverse health outcomes among immigrants. Efforts to address the health care needs of immigrants after the 2016 presidential election have centered on individual-level patient-practitioner strategies or federal- and state-level policy changes. However, these approaches have not captured the role of health care systems and the range of health care facilities encompassed within them. Objective: To characterize policies and actions implemented by health care facilities to address immigration status-related stressors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This exploratory qualitative study involved semistructured interviews in a purposive sample of health care facilities across 5 states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois) with the largest populations of individuals with undocumented immigration status. Data from media sources and informational interviews with local immigration advocacy leaders were used to identify health care facilities that had implemented welcoming policies and strategies. Stakeholders, including administrators, frontline clinicians involved in policy implementation, and senior executive leaders, were interviewed. Interviews were conducted between May 1 and August 9, 2018, and were recorded, transcribed, and coded using constant comparative analysis. Data analysis was performed from June 29, 2018, to February 5, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Stakeholder perspectives on the range, scope and content of policies and actions implemented to address immigration-related stressors at health care facilities. Results: A total of 38 in-depth interviews were conducted spanning 25 health care facilities in 5 states; these facilities included 13 federally qualified health centers, 7 academic or private hospitals, and 5 public institutions. Interviewees described policies and actions that mitigated one or more of the following perceived risks: (1) risk of exposure to immigration enforcement personnel at or near facilities, (2) risk of immigration status-related information disclosure, (3) risk associated with patient-level stressors, (4) risk associated with practitioner-level stressors, and (5) coordination of risk mitigation. Most personnel at health care facilities emphasized that their policies and actions fit within a larger mission and history of addressing the social needs of diverse patients and mitigating risks for patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Health care facilities can implement both active and reactive measures to address perceived immigration-associated risks among patients and practitioners. Population health and immigration policies are at the forefront of current policy debates. An understanding of the ways in which health care facilities can serve to mitigate perceived risks among their patients and employees can be one step toward optimizing health care for immigrants.