Distribution of COVID-19 Home Testing Through Community Health Centers: Results of the COVID CoNOce MÁS Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess acceptability and feasibility of rapid at-home COVID-19 testing and reporting of test results among individuals seeking care at community health centers (CHCs) and their household members. METHODS: Participants were recruited from 2 Community Health Centers during a clinic visit or a community event. Over-the-counter COVID-19 tests were distributed to participants for self-testing and to offer testing to household members. Separate surveys were administered to collect baseline information on the study participant and to collect test results on the study participant and household members. We calculated the proportion of individuals who agreed to complete COVID home testing, those who reported test results, and the test positivity. For household members, we calculated the proportion who completed and reported results and the positivity rate. We assessed reasons for undergoing COVID-19 testing and the action taken by participants who reported positive tests. RESULTS: A total of 2189 individuals were approached by CHC staff for participation and 1013 (46.3%) agreed to participate. Among the 959 participants with complete sociodemographic data, 88% were Hispanic and 82.6% were female. The proportion providing test results was 36.2% and the test positivity was 4.2%. Among the 1927 test reports, 35.3% for the index participant and 64.4% were for household members. The largest proportion of test results were for index participants (35.3%) and the second largest was for the participant's children (32.1%), followed by parents (16.9%), and spouse/partner (13.2%). The 2 most common reasons for testing were symptoms (29%) and attending family gatherings (26%). Among test-positive individuals (n = 80), most (83.3%) noted that they isolated but only 16.3% called their provider and 1.3% visited a clinic. CONCLUSION: Our results show interest in at-home COVID-19 testing of multiple household members, as we headed into the endemic phase of the pandemic. However, reporting of test results was modest and among test-positive individuals, reporting results to a provider was very low. These results underscore the challenges with reporting and following guidelines among people undergoing home testing for COVID-19, which may have implications for future pandemics.

Using a Cohort-Based Quality Improvement Coaching Model to Optimize Chronic Disease Management for Federally Qualified Health Center Patients.

CONTEXT: In fall 2020, Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County, in collaboration with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, launched a 3-year, cohort-based quality improvement (QI) coaching program to assist Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in improving their clinical management of hypertension, high blood cholesterol, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. PROGRAM: The QI program utilized a cohort-based coaching model in which 5 FQHCs were each assigned a practice transformation coach who provided them with guidance and support to monitor clinical quality measures. These measures were then used to facilitate changes and improvements in clinical workflows and approaches to patient care. To encourage peer learning and promote inter-organizational collaboration, the coaching team hosted quarterly cohort check-ins and an online group messaging board where the participating FQHCs could share lessons learned. Throughout the program, the FQHCs were provided trainings and resources to advance their clinical quality measures of choice. IMPLEMENTATION: To implement the program, each FQHC selected 2 clinical quality measures to focus on, completing a minimum of 1 Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle per year for each measure. Throughout, the coaches met regularly with FQHC staff to discuss progress, strategize on how best to address challenges encountered, and identify training or resource needs for their clinic sites. EVALUATION: To drive implementation of QI interventions and monitor overall progress, the FQHCs reported quarterly on the clinical quality measures being addressed. By program's end, all 5 FQHCs reached their 10% improvement goals. DISCUSSION: This QI coaching program allowed participating FQHCs to build new competencies and achieve measurable improvements in how they managed their patients' chronic diseases. This model of practice serves as a promising approach for achieving sustainable clinical improvements in these FQHCs.

Testing an Innovative Approach to Improve Hypertension Management at a Federally Qualified Health Center.

Despite the availability of effective treatments, hypertension control rates remain inadequate in the United States and locally in Los Angeles County. To address this health condition, QueensCare Health Centers developed and launched a team-based hypertension management program that was led by clinical pharmacists and designed to mitigate treatment barriers encountered at the system, provider, and patient levels. System- and provider-focused strategies included incorporating self-monitored blood pressure values into the electronic health record and retraining clinicians to regularly review these values; adding a community health worker to the disease management team; and utilizing clinical pharmacists to assess and titrate medications. Patient-focused strategies included tailoring education materials to reduce literacy and linguistic barriers; providing tailored one-on-one education and support; and providing blood pressure cuffs and pedometers. This multilevel intervention serves as a practical example of how team-based care can be optimized at a Federally Qualified Health Center.

Power Dynamics Perpetuate DEI Inaction: A Qualitative Study of Community Health Clinic Teams.

PURPOSE: Despite increased clinician awareness of systemic racism, lack of substantial action toward antiracism exists within health care. Clinical staff perspectives, particularly those of racial-ethnic minorities/persons of color (POC) who disproportionately occupy support staff roles with less power on the team, can yield insights into barriers to progress and can inform future efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI, also referred to as EDI) within health care settings. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of staff members on race and role power dynamics within community health clinic teams. METHODS: We conducted semistructured 45-minute interviews with staff members working in community health clinics in a large urban health care system from May to July 2021. We implemented purposeful recruitment to oversample POC and support staff and to achieve equal representation from the 13 community health clinics in the system. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed over 6 months using a critical-ideological paradigm. Themes reflecting experiences related to race and role power dynamics were identified. RESULTS: Our cohort had 60 participants: 42 (70%) were support staff (medical assistants, front desk clerks, care navigators, nurses) and 18 (30%) were clinicians and clinic leaders. The large majority of participants were aged 26 to 40 years (60%), were female (83%), and were POC (68%). Five themes emerged: (1) POC face hidden challenges, (2) racial discrimination persists, (3) power dynamics perpetuate inaction, (4) interpersonal actions foster safety and equity, and (5) system-level change is needed for cultural shift. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the race and role power dynamics within care teams, including experiences of staff members with less power, is critical to advancing DEI in health care.

Enacting Relational Public Health: Federally Qualified Health Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) proved to be critical points of access for people of color and other underserved populations during the COVID-19 pandemic, administering 61% of their COVID-19 vaccinations to people of color, compared to the 40% rate for the overall United States' vaccination effort. To better understand the approaches and outcomes of FQHCs in pandemic response, we conducted semi-structured interviews with FQHC health care providers and outreach workers and analyzed them using an inductive qualitative methodology.

Outpatient administration of CAR T-cell therapy: a focused review with recommendations for implementation in community based centers.

Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has transformed the treatment landscape for hematological malignancies, showing high efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) disease and otherwise poor prognosis in the pre-CAR-T era. These therapies have been usually administered in the inpatient setting due to the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). However, there is a growing interest in the transition to outpatient administration due to multiple reasons. We review available evidence regarding safety and feasibility of outpatient administration of CD19 targeted and BCMA targeted CAR T-cell therapy with an emphasis on the implementation of outpatient CAR-T programs in community-based centers.

The Role of Telehealth in Improving Care Connections and Outcomes for Community Health Center Patients with Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Does telehealth decrease health disparities by improving connections to care or simply result in new barriers for vulnerable populations who often lack access to technology? This study aims to better understand the role of telehealth and social determinants of health in improving care connections and outcomes for Community Health Center patients with diabetes. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of Electronic Health Record (EHR) data examined the relationship between telehealth utilization and glycemic control and consistency of connection to the health care team ("connectivity"). EHR data were collected from 20 Community Health Centers from July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and multivariable linear regression was used to assess the associations between telehealth use and engagement in care and glycemic control. RESULTS: The adjusted analysis found positive, statistically significant associations between telehealth use and each of the 2 primary outcomes. Telehealth use was associated with 0.89 additional months of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) control (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.04) and 4.49 additional months of connection to care (95% CI, 4.27 to 4.70). DISCUSSION: The demonstrated increased engagement in primary care for telehealth users is significant and encouraging as Community Health Center populations are at greater risk of lapses in care and loss to follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth can be a highly effective, patient-centered form of care for people with diabetes. Telehealth can play a critical role in keeping vulnerable patients with diabetes connected to their care team and involved in care and may be an important tool for reducing health disparities.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers.

Importance: While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol. Objective: To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings. Results: The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

Changes in Buprenorphine Prescribing in Community Health Centers.

This cohort study characterizes changes in buprenorphine prescribing among community health center clinicians between 2016 and 2021.

Ten-Year Outcomes: Community Health Center/Academic Medicine Partnership for Rural Family Medicine Training.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The widening gap between urban and rural health outcomes is exacerbated by physician shortages that disproportionately affect rural communities. Rural residencies are an effective mechanism to increase physician placement in rural and medically underserved areas yet are limited in number due to funding. Community health center/academic medicine partnerships (CHAMPs) can serve as a collaborative framework for expansion of academic primary care residencies outside of traditional funding models. This report describes 10-year outcomes of a rural training pathway developed as part of a CHAMP collaboration. METHODS: Using data from internal registries and public sources, our retrospective study examined demographic and postgraduation practice characteristics for rural pathway graduates. We identified the rates of postgraduation placement in rural (Federal Office of Rural Health Policy grant-eligible) and federally designated Medically Underserved Areas/Populations (MUA/Ps). We assessed current placement for graduates >3 years from program completion. RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, 25 trainees graduated from the two residency expansion sites. Immediately postgraduation, 84% (21) were in primary care Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs), 80% (20) in MUA/Ps, and 60% (15) in rural locations. Sixteen graduates were >3 years from program completion, including 69% (11) in primary care HPSAs, 69% (11) in MUA/Ps, and 50% (5) in rural locations. CONCLUSIONS: This CHAMP collaboration supported development of a rural pathway that embedded family medicine residents in community health centers and effectively increased placement in rural and MUA/Ps. This report adds to national research on rural workforce development, highlighting the role of academic-community partnerships in expanding rural residency training outside of traditional funding models.

Capacity of community health centers to treat snakebite envenoming in indigenous territories of the Brazilian Amazon.

INTRODUCTION: The deaths from and morbidities associated with snakebites - amputations, loss of function in the limb, visible scarring or tissue damage - have a vast economic, social, and psychological impact on indigenous communities in the Brazilian Amazon, especially children, and represent a real and pressing health crisis in this population. Snakebite clinical and research experts have therefore proposed expanding antivenom access from only hospitals to include the community health centers (CHC) located near and within indigenous communities. However, there are no studies examining the capacity of CHCs to store, administer, and manage antivenom treatment. In response to this gap, the research team calling for antivenom decentralization developed and validated an expert-based checklist outlining the minimum requirements for a CHC to provide antivenom. METHODS: The objective of this study was thus to survey a sample of CHCs in indigenous territories and evaluate their capacity to provide antivenom treatment according to this accredited checklist. The checklist was administered to nurses and doctors from 16 CHCs, two per indigenous district in Amazonas/Roraima states. RESULTS: Our results can be conceptualized into three central findings: 1) most CHCs have the capacity to provide antivenom treatment, 2) challenges to capacity are human resources and specialized items, and 3) antivenom decentralization is feasible and appropriate in indigenous communities. CONCLUSION: Decentralization would provide culturally and contextually appropriate care accessibility to a historically marginalized and underserved population of the Brazilian Amazon. Future studies should examine optimal resource allocation in indigenous territories and develop an implementation strategy in partnership with indigenous leaders. Beyond the indigenous population, the checklist utilized could be applied to community health centers treating the general population and/or adapted to other low-resource settings.

Factors contributing to differences in cervical cancer screening in rural and urban community health centers.

INTRODUCTION: Community health centers (CHCs) provide historically marginalized populations with primary care, including cancer screening. Previous studies have reported that women living in rural areas are less likely to be up to date with cervical cancer screening than women living in urban areas. However, little is known about rural-urban differences in cervical cancer screening in CHCs and the contributing factors, and whether such differences changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using 8-year pooled Uniform Data System (2014-2021) data and Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition, the extent to which CHC- and catchment area-level characteristics explained rural-urban differences in up-to-date cervical cancer screening was estimated. RESULTS: Up-to-date cervical cancer screening was lower in rural CHCs than urban CHCs (38.2% vs 43.0% during 2014-2019), and this difference increased during the pandemic (43.5% vs 49.0%). The rural-urban difference in cervical cancer screening in 2014-2019 was mostly explained by differences in CHC-level proportions of patients with limited English proficiency (55.9%) or income below the poverty level (12.3%) and females aged 21 to 64 years (9.8%), and catchment area-level's unemployment (3.4%) and primary care physician density (3.2%). However, Medicaid (-48.5%) or no insurance (-19.6%) counterbalanced the differences between rural-urban CHCs. The contribution of these factors to rural-urban differences in cervical cancer screening generally increased in 2020-2021. CONCLUSIONS: Rural-urban differences in cervical cancer screening were mostly explained by multiple CHC-level and catchment area-level characteristics. The findings call for tailored interventions, such as providing resources and language services, to improve cancer screening utilization among uninsured, Medicaid, and patients with limited English proficiency in rural CHCs.

Smoking Cessation Support in the Context of Other Social and Behavioral Needs in Community Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking rates remain disproportionately high among low income populations with unmet social and behavioral health needs. To address this problem, we sought to develop and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel smoking cessation program for community health centers that serve these populations. METHODS: We implemented a randomized pilot trial of two smoking cessation programs in three county operated community health center (CHC) sites: (1) a systematic assessment of smoking habits and standard tools to assist with smoking cessation counseling ("Enhanced Standard Program" or ESP), and (2) another that added a structured assessment of social and behavioral barriers to smoking cessation, ("Connection to Health for Smokers" or CTHS). Clinical outcomes were evaluated between 10 to 16 weeks, supplemented with interviews of patient participants and health care team members. RESULTS: 141 adults were randomized and 123 completed the intervention (61 in ESP, 62 in CTHS). At follow-up, over half of participants reported ≥1 quit attempts (59.7% ESP and 56.5% CTHS; adjusted p = .66) while more in ESP (24.6% vs. 12.9%) were documented as not smoking in the last 7 days (adjusted p = 0.03). In addition to being in ESP, predictors of smoking cessation included higher baseline confidence in ability to quit (p = 0.02) and more quit attempts during the study (p = 0.04). Health care teams, however, generally preferred the more comprehensive approach of CTHS. CONCLUSION: Lessons learned from this pilot study may inform the development of effective smoking cessation programs for CHCs that combine elements of both interventions.

Large-Scale Telemedicine Implementation for Outpatient Clinicians: Results From a Pandemic-Adapted Learning Collaborative.

Learning collaboratives are seldom used outside of health care quality improvement. We describe a condensed, 10-week learning collaborative ("Telemedicine Hack") that facilitated telemedicine implementation for outpatient clinicians early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Live attendance averaged 1688 participants per session. Of 1005 baseline survey respondents, 57% were clinicians with one-third identifying as from a racial/ethnic minoritized group. Practice characteristics included primary care (71%), rural settings (51%), and community health centers (28%). Of three surveys, a high of 438 (81%) of 540 clinicians had billed ≥1 video-based telemedicine visit. Our learning collaborative "sprint" is a promising model for scaling knowledge during emergencies and addressing health inequities.

SCALE-UP II: protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial examining population health management interventions to increase the uptake of at-home COVID-19 testing in community health centres.

INTRODUCTION: SCALE-UP II aims to investigate the effectiveness of population health management interventions using text messaging (TM), chatbots and patient navigation (PN) in increasing the uptake of at-home COVID-19 testing among patients in historically marginalised communities, specifically, those receiving care at community health centres (CHCs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial is a multisite, randomised pragmatic clinical trial. Eligible patients are >18 years old with a primary care visit in the last 3 years at one of the participating CHCs. Demographic data will be obtained from CHC electronic health records. Patients will be randomised to one of two factorial designs based on smartphone ownership. Patients who self-report replying to a text message that they have a smartphone will be randomised in a 2×2×2 factorial fashion to receive (1) chatbot or TM; (2) PN (yes or no); and (3) repeated offers to interact with the interventions every 10 or 30 days. Participants who do not self-report as having a smartphone will be randomised in a 2×2 factorial fashion to receive (1) TM with or without PN; and (2) repeated offers every 10 or 30 days. The interventions will be sent in English or Spanish, with an option to request at-home COVID-19 test kits. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants using at-home COVID-19 tests during a 90-day follow-up. The study will evaluate the main effects and interactions among interventions, implementation outcomes and predictors and moderators of study outcomes. Statistical analyses will include logistic regression, stratified subgroup analyses and adjustment for stratification factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. On completion, study data will be made available in compliance with National Institutes of Health data sharing policies. Results will be disseminated through study partners and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05533918 and NCT05533359.

The co-production process of an assessment programme: Between clarifying identity and developing the quality of French-speaking Belgian community health centres.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of primary care organizations is considered to be essential for improving care. However, the assessments' acceptability to professionals poses a challenge. Developing assessment programmes in collaboration with the end-users is a strategy that is widely encouraged to make interventions better targeted. By doing so, it can help to prevent resistance and encourage adherence to the assessment. This process, however, is rarely reported. This paper aims to fill this gap by describing the process of the co-production of an assessment programme for community health centres (CHCs) affiliated to the Federation of Community Health Centres (FCHC) in French-speaking Belgium. METHODS: We conducted a documentary study on the co-production of the assessment programme before carrying out semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders involved in its development. RESULTS: CHCs in French-speaking Belgium are increasing in number and are becoming more diverse. For the FCHC, this growth and diversification pose challenges for the meaning of CHC (an identity challenge) and what beneficiaries can expect in terms of the quality of organizations declaring themselves CHC (a quality challenge). Faced with this double challenge, the FCHC decided to develop an assessment programme, initially called Label, using participatory action research. During the co-production process, this initial programme version was abandoned in favour of a new name "DEQuaP". This new name embodies new objectives and new design regarding the assessment programme. When studying the co-production process, we attributed these changes to two controversies. The first concerns how much and which type of variety is desired among CHCs part of the FCHC. The second concerns the organization of the FCHC in its capacity as a federation. It shed light on tensions between two professional segments that, in this paper, we called "political professionalism" and "pragmatic professionalism". CONCLUSIONS: These controversies show the importance of underlying challenges behind the development of an assessment programme for CHCs. This provided information about the evolution of the identity of multidisciplinary organizations in primary care. Issues raised in the development of this assessment programme also show the importance of considering assessment methods that reflect and embody the current realities of these organizations and the way of developing these assessment methods.

Weight Gain Prevention Outcomes From a Pragmatic Digital Health Intervention With Community Health Center Patients: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity and its associated comorbidities continue to rise in the United States. Populations who are uninsured and from racial and ethnic minority groups continue to be disproportionately affected. These populations also experience fewer clinically meaningful outcomes in most weight loss trials. Weight gain prevention presents a useful strategy for individuals who experience barriers to weight loss. Given the often-limited weight management resources available to patients in primary care settings serving vulnerable patients, evaluating interventions with pragmatic designs may help inform the design of comprehensive obesity care delivered in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of Balance, a 2-arm, 12-month pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a digital weight gain prevention intervention, delivered to patients receiving primary care within federally qualified community health centers. METHODS: Balance was a 2-arm, 12-month pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a digital weight gain prevention intervention delivered to individuals who had a BMI of 25-40 kg/m2, spoke English or Spanish, and were receiving primary care within a network of federally qualified community health centers in North Carolina. The Balance intervention was designed to encourage behavioral changes that result in a slight energy deficit. Intervention participants received tailored goal setting and tracking, skills training, self-monitoring, and responsive health coaching from registered dietitians. Weight was measured at regular primary care visits and documented in the electronic health record. We compared the percentage of ≤3% weight gain in each arm at 24 months after randomization-our primary outcome-using individual empirical best linear unbiased predictors from the linear mixed-effects model. We used individual empirical best linear unbiased predictors from participants with at least 1 electronic health record weight documented within a 6-month window centered on the 24-month time point. RESULTS: We randomized 443 participants, of which 223 (50.3%) participants were allocated to the intervention arm. At baseline, participants had a mean BMI of 32.6 kg/m2. Most participants were Latino or Hispanic (n=200, 45.1%) or non-Latino or Hispanic White (n=115, 26%). In total, 53% (n=235) of participants had at least 1 visit with weight measured in the primary time window. The intervention group had a higher proportion with ≤3% weight gain at 6 months (risk ratio=1.12, 95% CI 0.94-1.28; risk difference=9.5, 95% CI -4.5 to 16.4 percentage points). This difference attenuated to the null by 24 months (risk ratio=1.00, 95% CI 0.82-1.20; risk difference=0.2, 95% CI -12.1 to 11.0 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with overweight or obesity receiving primary care at a community health center, we did not find long-term evidence to support the dissemination of a digital health intervention for weight gain prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03003403; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03003403. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s12889-019-6926-7.

Linguistic Disparities in Diabetes Care Quality in California Community Health Centers Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in diabetes care quality may have increased for patients with limited English language proficiency (LEP) compared to non-LEP patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes in diabetes care quality for adult LEP and non-LEP patients of community health centers (CHCs) were examined from 2019 to 2020. METHODS: Adults with Type 2 diabetes (n = 15 965) of 88 CHC sites in California and with 1+ visit/year in 2019 and 2020 from OCHIN electronic health record data were included. Multivariable regression models estimated the association of LEP status and changes in diabetes care quality from 2019 to 2020, controlling for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Interaction terms (LEP × 2020) were used to estimate differential over time changes in (1) blood pressure screening, (2) blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg), and (3) hemoglobin A1c control (HbA1c <8%) for LEP versus non-LEP patients. RESULTS: LEP and non-LEP patients with diabetes had comparable blood pressure screening and control in 2019 and in 2020. LEP patients were less likely than non-LEP patients to have their HbA1c under control in 2019 (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.77, 0.96, P = .006) and 2020 (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.75, 0.92, P = .001). There were no differential changes in HbA1c control over time for LEP and non-LEP patients. DISCUSSION: Although LEP patients were less likely than non-LEP patients to have their HbA1c under control, CHCs maintained quality of care equally for LEP and non-LEP patients with diabetes during the early pandemic period.