Patient Time Spent With Professional Medical Interpreters and the Care Experiences of Patients With Limited English Proficiency.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: More time spent with interpreters may support clinician-patient communication for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP), especially when interpreter support before and after clinical encounters is considered. We assessed whether more time spent with interpreters is associated with better patient-reported experiences of clinician-patient communication and interpreter support among patients with LEP. METHODS: Patients with LEP (n = 338) were surveyed about their experiences with both the clinician and interpreter. Duration of interpreter support during the encounter (in min) and auxiliary time spent before and after encounters supporting patients (in min) were documented by interpreters. Multivariable linear regression models were estimated to assess the association of the time duration of interpreter support and patient experiences of (1) clinician-patient communication, and (2) interpreter support, controlling for patient and encounter characteristics. RESULTS: The average encounter duration was 47.7 min (standard deviation, SD = 25.1), the average auxiliary time was 43.8 min (SD = 16.4), and the average total interpreter time was 91.1 min (SD = 28.6). LEP patients reported better experiences of interpreter support with a mean score of 97.4 out of 100 (SD = 6.99) compared to clinician-patient communication, with a mean score of 93.7 out of 100 (SD = 14.1). In adjusted analyses, total patient time spent with an interpreter was associated with better patient experiences of clinician-patient communication (ß = 7.23, P < .01) when auxiliary time spent by interpreters supporting patients before and after the encounter was considered, but not when only the encounter time was considered. CONCLUSIONS: Longer duration of time spent with an interpreter was associated with better clinician-patient communication for patients with LEP when time spent with an interpreter before and after the clinician encounter is considered. Policymakers should consider reimbursing health care organizations for time interpreters spend providing patient navigation and other support beyond clinical encounters.

The Impact of Structural Integration on Clinical Outcomes among Individuals with Serious Mental Illness and Chronic Illness.

Though considered a best practice, there is substantial variation in how integrated behavioral health (IBH) services are structured. This study examined the impact of IBH structure on health outcomes among individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) and chronic disease receiving care in community health centers (CHCs). Data from the ADVANCE network identified 8,548 individuals with co-occurring SMI diabetes and 16,600 with an SMI and hypertension. Logistic regression tested whether IBH type impacted disease specific health outcomes among these populations. Among those with diabetes or hypertension, colocated care was associated with better health outcomes related to HbA1c, blood pressure control, and BMI compared to less coordinated and unintegrated care, though there was significant variation in this relationship across SMI diagnoses. Results reflect that colocation of primary care and behavioral health may improve outcomes for individuals with bipolar disorder or major depression and chronic disease, but that CHC-based integrated care may not be optimized for individuals with schizophrenia.

Association between ethnicity, language and metformin prescriptions in U.S. community health center patients with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Metformin treatment is a recommended first-line medication for patients with type 2 diabetes. Latino patients are subject to factors that may modify their level of diabetes care, including medication prescription. We evaluated the odds of and times to metformin prescription among non-Latino whites, English-preferring Latinos, and Spanish-preferring Latinos with diabetes. METHODS: We constructed a retrospective cohort of 154,368 adult patients from 835 community health centers (CHCs) across 20 states who were diagnosed with diabetes during the study. Patients were from non-Latino white, English-preferring Latino, and Spanish-preferring Latino ethnic/language groups. We modeled adjusted odds of metformin prescription and adjusted hazards (time-to-event) of metformin prescription after diabetes diagnosis and high hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c > 9) test results. RESULTS: English-preferring Latinos had similar odds of metformin prescription (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.01 (95% CI = 0.93, 1.09)), slightly lower time to metformin prescription after diabetes diagnosis (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.06(95% CI = 1.04, 1.09)), and similar time to metformin prescription after a high HbA1c result (HR = 1.04 (0.99, 1.09)) compared to non-Latino whites. Spanish-preferring Latinos had higher odds of metformin prescription (OR) = 1.42 (95% CI = 1.33, 1.52), and less time to prescription after diabetes diagnosis (HR = 1.18 (1.15, 1.20)) and after a high HbA1c result (HR = 1.15 (1.11, 1.20)). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of metformin prescription patterns among non-Latino whites, English-preferring Latinos, and Spanish-preferring Latinos did not suggest a lower or slower tendency to prescribe metformin in Latino patients. Understanding disparities in diabetes diagnosis may require further investigation of medication adherence barriers, diet and exercise counseling, and multi-level influences on diabetes outcomes in Latino patients.

Adjusting Clinical Plans Based on Social Context.

BACKGROUND: Social risk data collection is expanding in community health centers (CHCs). We explored clinicians' practices of adjusting medical care based on their awareness of patients' social risk factors-that is, changes they make to care plans to mitigate the potential impacts of social risk factors on their patients' care and health outcomes-in a set of Texas CHCs. METHODS: Convergent mixed methods. Surveys/interviews explored clinician perspectives on adjusting medical care based on patient social risk factors. Survey data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and inductive coding. RESULTS: Across 4 CHCs, we conducted 15 clinician interviews and collected 97 surveys. Interviews and surveys overall indicated support for adjustment activities. Two main themes emerged: 1) clinicians reported making frequent adjustments to patient care plans based on their awareness of patients' social contexts, while simultaneously expressing concerns about adjustment; and 2) awareness of patients' social risk factors, and clinician time, training, and experience all influenced clinician adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians at participating CHCs described routinely adjusting patient care plans based on their patients' social contexts. These adjustments were being made without specific guidelines or training. Standardization of adjustments may facilitate the contextualization of patient care through shared decision making to improve outcomes.

Self-Management Support Improves Diabetes Outcomes Without Exacerbating Inequities.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research has found an association between low health literacy and poor clinical outcomes in type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients. We sought to determine if this association can be mitigated by a self-management support (SMS) program provided by trained health workers using a technology assisted menu driven program, called Connection to Health (CTH). METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis from a randomized trial of 2 similar versions of CTH implemented in 12 Northern California community health centers. As part of this, each participant completed a single validated question to assess health literacy. We used unadjusted and adjusted linear regression analyses to determine the extent to which baseline health literacy was predictive of prepost changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). RESULTS: Of 365 participants for whom prepost HbA1c data were available, HbA1c concentrations declined by an average of 0.76% (from 9.9% to 9.2%, 95% CI (0.53%-1.0%). Almost 114 (31.2%) of the participants had low health literacy, but there was no significant association between health literacy and the reduction in HbA1c concentrations in either the unadjusted or adjusted models, nor did baseline health literacy predict prepost changes in body mass index, medication adherence, exercise, or diet. DISCUSSION: The study found that implementing the CTH program in 2 versions via a randomized clinical trial improved HbA1c concentrations without increasing disparities between participants with high and low health literacy. This suggests CTH-like programs can enhance diabetes outcomes in community health centers without exacerbating inequities for those with low health literacy.

Children accessing accident and emergency department for non-urgent consultations: A cross-sectional study about parents' use of primary care services.

INTRODUCTION: Parents often take their children to the Paediatric Accident and Emergency Department (A&E) for non-urgent consultations rather than using community-based primary care services. This study describes the use of primary care services in parents taking their children to the A&E for non-urgent consultations. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from July 2018 to June 2019, in a second-level Italian paediatric A&E of a tertiary-level children's academic research and hub hospital. Parents of children aged between 3 months and 6 years assigned with a white code at the triage were asked to complete a paper-and-pencil 40-item questionnaire after accessing the A&E for a non-urgent consultation. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by the parents of 237 children (males 58 %; median age = 2.3 years). Overall, 48.1 % (n = 114) of the parents reported consulting 'often/always' the primary care paediatrician, mainly when their child was sick and for check-ups (n = 182, 76.8 %). However, only 7.2 % (n = 17) of the parents 'often/always' used any other health service in the community. Most of them (n = 191, 82 %) did not even know where the community health centre was located. CONCLUSION: Parents accessing the A&E for non-urgent consultations should be better informed/educated on how to use community health services.

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.

A pragmatic randomized trial of mailed fecal immunochemical testing to increase colorectal cancer screening among low-income and minoritized populations.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, particularly among low-income and minoritized populations, for whom the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged progress in achieving equity. METHODS: A hub-and-spoke model was used. The hub was a nonacademic organization and the spokes were three community health center (CHC) systems overseeing numerous clinic sites. Via a cluster-randomized trial design, nine clinic sites were randomized to intervention and 16 clinic sites were randomized to usual care. Patient-level interventions included invitation letters, mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), and call/text-based reminders. Year 1 intervention impact, which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, was assessed as the proportion completing screening among individuals not up to date at baseline, which compared intervention and nonintervention clinics accounting for intraclinic cluster variation; confidence intervals (CIs) around differences not including 0 were interpreted as statistically significant. RESULTS: Among 26,736 patients who met eligibility criteria, approximately 58% were female, 55% were Hispanic individuals, and 44% were Spanish speaking. The proportion completing screening was 11.5 percentage points (ppts) (95% CI, 6.1-16.9 ppts) higher in intervention versus usual care clinics. Variation in differences between intervention and usual care clinics was observed by sex (12.6 ppts [95% CI, 7.2-18.0 ppts] for females; 8.8 ppts [95% CI, 4.7-13.9 ppts] for males) and by racial and ethnic group (13.8 ppts [95% CI, 7.0-20.6 ppts] for Hispanic individuals; 13.0 ppts [95% CI, 3.6-22.4 ppts] for Asian individuals; 11.3 ppts [95% CI, 5.8-16.8 ppts] for non-Hispanic White individuals; 6.1 ppts [95% CI, 0.8-10.4 ppts] for Black individuals). CONCLUSIONS: A regional mailed FIT intervention was effective for increasing CRC screening rates across CHC systems serving diverse, low-income populations.

Eye Care in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

PURPOSE: To assess changes in vision care availability at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) between 2017 and 2021 and whether neighborhood-level demographic social risk factors (SRFs) associated with eye care services provided by FQHCs. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) data and 2017-2021 American Community Survey (ACS). PARTICIPANTS: Federally Qualified Health Centers. METHODS: Patient and neighborhood characteristics for SRFs were summarized. Differences in FQHCs providing and not providing vision care were compared via Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests for continuous measures and chi-square tests for categorical measures. Logistic regression models were used to test the associations between neighborhood measures and FQHCs providing vision care, adjusted for patient characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for neighborhood-level predictors of FQHCs providing vision care services. RESULTS: Overall, 28.5% of FQHCs (n = 375/1318) provided vision care in 2017 versus 32% (n = 435/1362) in 2021 with some increases and decreases in both the number of FQHCs and those with and without vision services. Only 2.6% of people who accessed FQHC services received eye care in 2021. Among the 435 FQHCs that provided vision care in 2021, 27.1% (n = 118) had added vision services between 2017 and 2021, 71.5% (n = 311) had been offering vision services since at least 2017, and 1.4% (n = 6) were newly established. FQHCs providing vision care in 2021 were more likely to be in neighborhoods with a higher percentage of Hispanic/Latino individuals (OR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.02-1.14, P = 0.0094), Medicaid-insured individuals (OR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.02-1.14, P = 0.0120), and no car households (OR, 1.07, 95% CI, 1.01-1.13, P = 0.0142). However, FQHCs with vision care, compared to FQHCs without vision care, served a lower percentage of Hispanic/Latino individuals (27.2% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.0007), Medicaid-insured patients (42.8% vs. 46.8%, P < 0.0001), and patients living at or below 100% of the federal poverty line (61.3% vs. 66.3%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Vision care services are available at a few FQHCs, localized to a few states. Expanding eye care access at FQHCs would meet patients where they seek care to mitigate vision loss to underserved communities. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

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.

Enhancing Behavioral Health Implementation in a Care Coordination Program at a Federally Qualified Health Center: A Case Study Applying Implementation Frameworks.

Federally Qualified Health Centers are charged with providing comprehensive health care in traditionally underserved areas, underscoring their importance in caring for and promoting health equity for the large portion of historically marginalized communities in this setting. There is a significant need to ensure Federally Qualified Health Centers are equipped to appropriately address the immense behavioral health needs common among patients served. Care coordination is an evidence-based model that is increasingly utilized in Federally Qualified Health Centers to improve care equity and outcomes. Addressing and supporting behavioral health needs is a key aspect of such care coordination models. Context-specific considerations and programmatic supports, particularly those that address the needs of care coordinators and the complex patients they serve, are needed to ensure such models can appropriately meet and address the behavioral health concerns of the diverse populations served. The goal of this study was to present a mixed-methods case study that systematically applies implementation frameworks to conduct a needs and context assessment to inform the development and testing of evidence-based practice strategies and implementation support as part of a care coordination program within a partnered Federally Qualified Health Center.

Latino-White Disparities in Identification and Control of Elevated Blood Pressure Among Adults With Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Studies analyzing blood pressure (BP) management using the hypertension control cascade have consistently shown disparities in hypertension awareness, treatment, and BP control between Latino patients and non-Latino White patients. We analyze this cascade using electronic health record data from a multistate network of community health centers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 790 clinics in 23 US states from 2012 to 2020, including 1 270 174 patients, were analyzed to compare BP documentation in the electronic health record, clinician acknowledgment (diagnosis or treatment) of incident hypertension (BP ≥140/90), medication prescription, and BP control between non-Latino White patients, English-preferring Latino patients, and Spanish-preferring Latino patients, adjusted for patient-level covariates, and clustered on patients' primary clinics. Among the 429 182 patients with elevated BP (≥140/90) during ambulatory visits from 2012 to 2020, we found that clinician acknowledgment of hypertension was more likely in Spanish-preferring and English-preferring Latino patients versus non-Latino White patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.17 [95% CI, 1.11-1.24]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.02-1.12], respectively). In addition, Spanish-preferring Latino patients were more likely to receive a medication versus non-Latino White patients (aOR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.16-1.28]). Among those receiving medication, Latino patients were as likely as non-Latino White patients to have their BP controlled (<140/90). CONCLUSIONS: In a large retrospective study of community health center patients with incident hypertension, the expected disparities in hypertension management between Spanish-preferring Latino, English-preferring Latino, and non-Latino White patients were not identified. These findings add to the hypertension control cascade by examining robust electronic health record data from community health centers and may provide clues to reducing disparities in hypertension management.

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.

Barriers to Medication Error Reporting in a federally qualified health center (Barriers to MEET in a FQHC).

Barriers to medication error reporting in inpatient settings and primary care clinics are well known and can be categorized as psychological, logistical, knowledge, and workplace. These barriers have not been explored well at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) where limited pharmacy services may exist. METHODS: This prospective, cross-sectional study surveyed 161 medical professionals at a large FQHC clinic with a small pharmacy team to explore their understanding of medication error categories and the influence of barriers to medication error reporting on their decision to report. RESULTS: Thirty-six (22.4%) respondents completed the survey. Nearly 40% of respondents would not report a near miss error and were influenced by workplace/environmental barriers significantly more than those who would report. Regardless of reporting experience or patient-care role, assessed barrier categories influence the decision to report similarly. CONCLUSION: Near miss medication errors are inconsistently reported. Efforts to improve reporting should emphasize addressing workplace/environmental barriers.

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.

Bundling Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach with Screening for Social Risk in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Stepped-Wedge Implementation-Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Bundling is combining individual interventions to meet quality metrics. Bundling offers of cancer screening with screening for social determinants of health (SDOH) may enable health centers to assist patients with social risks and yield efficiencies. OBJECTIVE: To measure effects of bundling fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and SDOH screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). DESIGN: Clustered stepped-wedge trial. PARTICIPANTS: Four Massachusetts FQHCs randomized to implement bundled FIT-SDOH over 8-week "steps." INTERVENTION: Outreach to 50-75-year-olds overdue for CRC screening to offer FIT with SDOH screening. The implementation strategy used facilitation and training for data monitoring and reporting. MAIN MEASURES: Implementation process descriptions, data from facilitation meetings, and CRC and SDOH screening rates. Rates were compared between implementation and control FQHCs in each "step" by fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for FQHCs, patients, and "step" by FQHC. KEY RESULTS: FQHCs tailored implementation processes to their infrastructure, workflows, and staffing and prioritized different groups for outreach. Two FQHCs used population health outreach, and two integrated FIT-SDOH within established programs, such as pre-visit planning. Of 34,588 patients overdue for CRC screening, 54% were female; 20% Black, 11% Latino, 10% Asian, and 47% white; 32% had Medicaid, 16% Medicare, 32% private insurance, and 11% uninsured. Odds of CRC screening completion in implementation "steps" compared to controls were higher overall and among groups prioritized for outreach (overall: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.41, p = 0.005; prioritized: aOR 2.88, p = 0.002). Odds of SDOH screening did not differ across "steps." CONCLUSIONS: As healthcare systems are required to conduct more screenings, it is notable that outreach for a long-standing cancer screening requirement increased screening, even when bundled with a newer screening requirement. This outreach was feasible in a real-world safety-net clinical population and may conserve resources, especially compared to more complex or intensive outreach strategies. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04585919.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Blood Pressure and Glycemic Control in the US Community Health Center Patient Population.

OBJECTIVE: To describe blood pressure and glycemic control by racial/ethnic group in the US Community Health Center (CHC) patient population, and whether center characteristics, proxying for higher resource levels and better quality of care, were associated with greater rates of controlled cardiometabolic conditions. METHODS: Data came from the Uniform Data System, representing aggregate patient clinical data for individual health centers in 2019. Descriptive analyses were conducted weighting by health center patient populations to produce race-specific national rates of blood pressure and glycemic control, and linear regression is used to test whether cardiometabolic control rates varied by center characteristics. RESULTS: Hypertension was controlled for 67.2% of non-Hispanic White, 66.9% of Hispanic, and 56.7% of non-Hispanic Black patients. Diabetes was controlled for 70.7% of non-Hispanic White, 65.7% of Hispanic, and 66.1% of non-Hispanic Black patients. The rate of blood pressure control was 2.54 to 3.99 percentage points higher across racial/ethnic groups in health centers that adopted a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model of care relative to non-PCMH centers, while glycemic control was 1.08 to 2.27 pp. higher as a function of PCMH certification. Results for other center characteristics did not show consistent patterns across racial groups or outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study documented racial and ethnic health disparities in the CHC patient population after major expansion of the CHC program. CHCs with PCMH certification have improved clinical outcomes among patients with hypertension and diabetes across racial/ethnic groups relative to centers without this certification.

Healthcare utilization for asthma exacerbation among children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers.

Latino children of Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers (MSFWs) with asthma are at risk for poor health outcomes due to medical access barriers. We compared differences in acute care utilization for asthma exacerbations among migrant and non-migrant Latino and non-Hispanic white (NHW) children at U.S. community health centers. A retrospective observational study utilizing electronic health record data from the ADVANCE Clinical Research Network of United States community health centers included 13,423 children ages 3-17 with a primary care visit between 2005 and 2017 from eight states. Emergency department (ED) and hospitalization data came from Oregon Medicaid claims. Outcomes included acute clinic visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations for asthma exacerbation. Regression analyses adjusted for patient-level covariates. Latino children had higher odds of acute clinic visits for asthma exacerbation compared to NHW children (MSFW odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, 95 % CI = 1.03-1.33; without migrant status OR = 1.13, 95 % CI = 1.03-1.23). MSFW children using Oregon Medicaid had fewer ED visits (rate ratio [RR] = 0.72, 95 % CI = 0.52-0.99) and hospitalizations (RR = 0.47, 95 % CI = 0.26-0.86) compared to NHW children. Increased community health center visits may help mitigate disparities in acute asthma care for MSFW children.

Mental health care provision in community health centers and hospital emergency department utilization.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether community health centers (CHCs) are effective in offsetting mental health emergency department (ED) visits. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: The HRSA Uniform Data System and the HCUP State ED Databases for Florida patients during 2012-2019. STUDY DESIGN: We identified CHC-year-specific service areas using patient origin zip codes. We then estimated panel data models for number of ED mental health visits per capita in a CHC's service area. Models measured CHC mental health utilization as number of visits, unique patients, and intensity (visits per patient). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: CHC mental health utilization increased approximately 100% during 2012-2019. Increased CHC mental health provision was associated with small reductions in ED mental health utilization. An annual increase of 1000 CHC mental health care visits (5%) was associated with 0.44% fewer ED mental health care visits (p = 0.153), and an increase of 1000 CHC mental health care patients (15%) with 1.9% fewer ED mental health care visits (p = 0.123). An increase of 1 annual mental health visit per patient was associated with 16% fewer ED mental health care visits (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that mental health provision in CHCs may reduce reliance on hospital EDs, albeit minimally. Policies that promote alignment of services between CHCs and local hospitals may accelerate this effect.

Leveraging an implementation science partnership network to understand how Federally Qualified Health Centers operationalize and address health equity.

Health equity-focused implementation research requires using definitions and approaches that are relevant and meaningful to implementation partners. We examined how health equity was operationalized and addressed at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). We conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership (n = 19) and staff (n = 12) at 10 FQHCs in an implementation science partnership network for cancer control equity to understand how they operationalized and addressed health equity. We performed rapid qualitative analysis and shared findings with a larger group of 13 community health centers (including the 10 FQHCs) at an Implementation Learning Community (ILC) to identify action areas for research and practice, followed by a second phase of synthesizing qualitative codes into themes and mapping themes onto a framework for advancing health equity in healthcare organizations. Participants defined health equity as central to the mission of FQHCs, and identified barriers (e.g. financing models) and facilitators (e.g. interpreter services) to advancing health equity at FQHCs. These findings resonated with ILC participants who emphasized the challenge of addressing root cause social determinants of inequities using limited available resources in FQHCs and the importance of developing meaningful collaboration with communities for data collection, data interpretation, data use, and data ownership. Themes captured recommendations to advance health equity in daily work at FQHCs, including investments in staffing, training, and resources. Mapping qualitative themes from health equity-centered interviews with FQHC partners onto a framework for advancing health equity in healthcare organizations can provide clear, context-specific direction for actions aimed at improving health and healthcare equity.

Health equity-focused implementation research requires using definitions and approaches that are relevant and meaningful to implementation partners. Toward this goal, our research team asked leadership and staff at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) to share how they defined and addressed health equity at their practice settings. FQHC participants defined health equity as the essential mission of FQHCs as safety net organizations delivering care to medically underserved populations. In addition, key informants identified barriers (e.g. financing models) and facilitators (e.g. interpreter services) to advancing health equity at FQHCs. We presented these findings to a larger group of FQHC stakeholders who recommended that future implementation research and practice consider how FQHCs are challenged to address the root causes of healthcare inequities with limited resources. They also highlighted the importance of meaningful collaboration among researchers, FQHCs, and communities for data collection, data interpretation, data use, and data ownership to advance health equity. Conducting research to understand the perspectives and experiences of FQHC partners can provide clear, context-specific direction for actions to improve health equity and can inform future approaches to health equity-focused implementation research that ismeaningful to FQHC partners and the communities they serve.