Development and Testing of the Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care (PSPIC) Survey.

This article discusses development and testing of the Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care Survey, a 21-item questionnaire, informed by Singer and colleagues' seven-construct framework. Questionnaires were sent to 2,936 providers and staff at 100 federally qualified health centers and other safety net clinics in 10 Midwestern U.S. states; 332 were ineligible, leaving 2,604 potential participants. Following 4 mailings, 781 (30%) responded from 97 health centers. Item analyses, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis were undertaken. Exploratory factor analysis suggests four latent factors: Teams and Care Continuity, Patient Centeredness, Coordination with External Providers, and Coordination with Community Resources. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed these factor groupings. For the total sample, Cronbach's alpha exceeded 0.7 for each latent factor. Descriptive responses to each of the 21 Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care questions appear to have potential in identifying areas that providers and staff recognize as care integration strengths, and areas that may warrant improvement.

Community health center provider and staff's Spanish language ability and cultural awareness.

Many community health center providers and staff care for Latinos with diabetes, but their Spanish language ability and awareness of Latino culture are unknown. We surveyed 512 Midwestern health center providers and staff who managed Latino patients with diabetes. Few respondents had high Spanish language (13%) or cultural awareness scores (22%). Of respondents who self-reported 76-100% of their patients were Latino, 48% had moderate/low Spanish language and 49% had moderate/low cultural competency scores. Among these respondents, 3% lacked access to interpreters and 27% had neither received cultural competency training nor had access to training. Among all respondents, Spanish skills and Latino cultural awareness were low. Respondents who saw a significant number of Latinos had good access to interpretation services but not cultural competency training. Improved Spanish-language skills and increased access to cultural competency training and Latino cultural knowledge are needed to provide linguistically and culturally tailored care to Latino patients.

Community health center access to resources for their patients with diabetes.

Community health center providers and staff access to resources for their Latino and non-Latino patients with diabetes is unknown. We analyzed survey data from 577 community health center providers and staff who manage diabetes from 85 sites across 10 Midwestern states. Respondents were labeled as high proportion (HP) providers if >25 % of their site's diabetes population was Latino. HP providers were more likely than non-HP providers to have access to physician's assistants (71 vs. 58 %) and certified diabetes educators (61 vs. 51 %), but less access to endocrinologists (25 vs. 35 %) (p < 0.05). HP providers had greater access to Spanish-speaking providers (48 vs. 26 %), on-site interpreters (83 vs. 59 %), culturally tailored diabetes education programs (64 vs. 26 %), and community outreach programs (77 vs. 52 %) (p < 0.05). Providers at HP sites reported greater access to a range of personnel and culturally tailored programs. However, increased access to these services is needed across all sites.

Insurance status and quality of diabetes care in community health centers.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare quality of diabetes care by insurance type in federally funded community health centers. Method. We categorized 2018 diabetes patients, randomly selected from 27 community health centers in 17 states in 2002, into 6 mutually exclusive insurance groups. We used multivariate logistic regression analyses to compare quality of diabetes care according to 6 National Committee for Quality Assurance Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set diabetes processes of care and outcome measures. RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of patients had no health insurance, 24% had Medicare only, 15% had Medicaid only, 7% had both Medicare and Medicaid, 14% had private insurance, and 7% had another insurance type. Those without insurance were the least likely to meet the quality-of-care measures; those with Medicaid had a quality of care similar to those with no insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Research is needed to identify the major mediators of differences in quality of care by insurance status among safety-net providers such as community health centers. Such research is needed for policy interventions at Medicaid benefit design and as an incentive to improve quality of care.

Sustaining quality improvement in community health centers: perceptions of leaders and staff.

The Health Disparities Collaboratives are the largest national quality improvement (QI) initiatives in community health centers. This article identifies the incentives and assistance personnel believe are necessary to sustain QI. In 2004, 1006 survey respondents (response rate 67%) at 165 centers cited lack of resources, time, and staff burnout as common barriers. Release time was the most desired personal incentive. The highest funding priorities were direct patient care services (44% ranked no. 1), data entry (34%), and staff time for QI (26%). Participants also needed help with patient self-management (73%), information systems (77%), and getting providers to follow guidelines (64%).

Provider perceptions of limited health literacy in community health centers.

OBJECTIVE: To examine techniques used by community health center (HC) providers to care for patients with limited health literacy (LHL). METHODS: Survey mailed to 803 HC providers in 10 Midwestern states. Response rate was 47.5%. Associations between variables were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models to account for clustering of respondents within HCs. RESULTS: The average provider estimates of LHL prevalence among English- and Spanish-speaking patients were 41+/-24% (mean+/-S.D.) and 48+/-30%, respectively. Those with training in health literacy were more likely to have patients repeat instructions back to check understanding (OR=2.05 and p=0.04) and were more likely to give out health education materials designed for patients with LHL (OR=2.80 and p=0.0002). Providers differed by type in encouraging patients to bring friends or family members to appointments (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Providers estimate LHL to be highly prevalent in their HCs, and use various techniques to assist patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Training in health literacy is associated with increased usage of evidence-based techniques to assist patients with LHL. Providers at all levels would likely benefit from LHL training. Most providers believe providing health education materials designed specifically for patients with LHL would be very helpful.