Evaluation of patient health outcomes of a student-run free clinic in East Harlem.

BACKGROUND: Most United States medical schools have affiliated student-run free clinics, but the quality of services provided in such contexts compared to national metrics is unknown. This study determines whether a student-run, attending-supervised free clinic servicing a low-income and minority race patient population in New York City can meet national metrics of care. METHODS: Through chart review from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020, patient outcomes and service utilization in the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set were examined and compared to national rates of patients using Medicaid HMO or Medicare. Patients are ≥ 21 years of age, residents of East Harlem, and ineligible for health insurance because of legal residency requirements. The majority identify as Hispanic and speak Spanish as their primary language. All patients who were seen in the clinic during the 2020 calendar year were included. The primary study outcome is the number of Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measures in which patients, seen in a student-run free clinic, meet or exceed national comparisons. RESULTS: The healthcare outcomes of 238 patients, mean age 47.8 years and 54.6% female, were examined in 18 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measures. The student-run free clinic met or exceeded national metrics in 16 out of 18 categories. CONCLUSIONS: The student-run free clinic met or exceeded the national standard of care according to national metrics. Evidence-based priorities have been clarified for future improvement. Other student-run free clinics should similarly evaluate the quality of their services.

How Are We Doing? A Scoping Review of Published Patient-Centered Outcomes Research in United States Student-Run Free Clinics.

Phenomenon: Student-run free clinics (SRFCs) serve an integral role in most United States (US) medical schools and contribute substantially to literature on the quality of care to uninsured persons. There has been substantial growth over the past decade of scholarly work produced by SRFCs as they have increased in size and number. Research on patient care outcomes informs better care structures for patients, however there is no current synthesis of patient care outcomes research among SRFCs. This article provides an overview of SRFC research on patient outcomes to understand current research domains and to identify gaps in the literature. Approach: We completed a scoping review by searching Scopus, PubMed, and Journal of Student Run Clinics in June 2021. All peer-reviewed, English-language articles focused on patient-centered outcomes at SRFCs in the US were included. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, and full-text screening of relevant works, and eight reviewers conducted data extraction. Descriptive data analysis was performed along with relevant content analysis of patient-centered outcomes. Findings: The search strategy identified 784 studies, of which 87 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were published within the last six years (81.6%), located in California, New York, or Florida (43.7%), and intervention based (33.3%). Many studies (46.0%) had a specific disease of focus of which diabetes was the most researched(19.5%). Patient-centered studies were the leading focus of the study aims (40.2%), where key findings demonstrated primarily improved outcomes in clinic metrics post-intervention (36.8%) or equivalent/better clinical performance than national metrics (20.7%). Insights: This review brings to light gaps in the literature reporting research in SRFCs and can be applied to other low-resource settings. Future efforts to expand SRFC outcomes research should focus on community relationship building, understanding institutional support, and ensuring education on best practices for research within SRFCs. Doing so informs patient care improvement as SRFCs continue to operate as safety net clinics for marginalized populations.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Surgery Reduces Length of Hospital Stay and Inpatient Narcotic Use.

Background: The application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has the potential to improve outcomes, hasten patient recovery, and reduce costs. ERAS has been applied to spine surgery for several years, but data are limited around the impact of ERAS on minimally invasive spine surgery, specifically. The authors report their experience implementing a multimodal ERAS protocol for patients receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Methods: The ERAS protocol was implemented at The Valley Hospital Hospital in Ridgewood, New Jersey in January 2020. Following implementation, all patients receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by a single surgeon were studied. The authors analyze the impact of the protocol on length of stay (LOS), disposition post discharge, and opioid consumption postoperatively in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Results: Sixteen patients were enrolled in the protocol and compared with 17 historical controls. LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS cohort (1.6 vs. 2.4 days, P = 0.022). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to disposition; the majority of patients were discharged to home without need for in-home medical services. Patients in the ERAS cohort consumed significantly fewer opioid analgesics postoperatively in the inpatient setting (51 mg morphine milligram equivalents vs. 320 mg morphine milligram equivalents, P = 0.00016). On average, patients in the ERAS cohort were prescribed fewer opioids analgesics post discharge. Conclusions: ERAS application to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was safe and effective, significantly reducing LOS and inpatient opioid consumption. These data reflect the importance of uniformly applying a multimodal ERAS protocol to accelerate recovery and reduce narcotic use.