A qualitative investigation of uninsured patient and primary care provider perspectives on specialty care eConsults.

BACKGROUND: Uninsured and underinsured patients face specialty care access disparities that prevent them from obtaining the care they need and negatively impact their health and well-being. We aimed to understand how making specialty care electronic consultations (eConsults) available at a multi-site Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in central Texas affected uninsured patients' care-seeking experiences and impacted their ability to receive the needed care. METHODS: We used concepts from Ecological Systems Theory to examine individual, interpersonal, organization-level, social, and health policy environment factors that impacted patients' access to specialty care and the use of eConsults. We conducted thematic analysis of semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients about seeking specialty care while uninsured and with uninsured patients and FQHC PCPs about their experience using eConsults to obtain specialists' recommendations. RESULTS: Patients and PCPs identified out-of-pocket cost, stigma, a paucity of local specialists willing to see uninsured patients, time and difficulty associated with travel and transportation to specialty visits, and health policy limitations as barriers to obtaining specialty care. Benefits of using eConsults for uninsured patients included minimizing/avoiding financial stress, expanding access to care, expanding scope of primary care, and expediting access to specialists. Concerns about the model included patients' limited understanding of eConsults, concern about cost, and worry whether eConsults could appropriately meet their specialty needs. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that eConsults delivered in a primary care FQHC addressed uninsured patients' specialty care access concerns. They helped to address financial and geographic barriers, provided time and cost savings to patients, expanded FQHC PCPs' knowledge and care provision options, and allowed patients to receive more care in primary care.

Transforming Primary Care for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: A Collaborative Quality Improvement Initiative.

PURPOSE: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people experience multiple disparities in access to care and health outcomes. We developed a quality improvement initiative, Transforming Primary Care for LGBT People, to enhance the capacity of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to provide culturally affirming care for this population. METHODS: The 1-year intervention blended the models of Practice Improvement Collaboratives and Project ECHO (Extension for Community Health Outcomes) to facilitate learning and translate knowledge into action. FQHC teams received coaching in creating LGBT-inclusive environments, collecting sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data, taking risk-based sexual histories, and screening LGBT people for syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhea, and HIV. We used a preintervention-postintervention evaluation design. RESULTS: We selected 10 FQHCs serving 441,387 patients in 123 clinical sites in 9 states. The intervention spread from 10 clinicians in 10 clinical sites to 431 clinicians in 79 clinical sites. FQHCs reported increases in culturally affirming practices, including collecting patient pronoun information (42.9% increase) and identifying LGBT patient liaisons (300.0% increase). Postintervention, among 9 FQHCs reporting SOGI data from electronic health records, SOGI documentation increased from 13.5% to 50.8% of patients (276.3% increase). Among 8 FQHCs reporting number of LGBT patients, screening of LGBT patients increased from 22.3% (95% CI, 4.9%-40.0%) to 34.6% (95% CI, 19.4%-48.6%) for syphilis (86.5% increase); from 25.3% (95% CI, 7.6%-43.1%) to 44.1% (95% CI, 30.2%-58.1%) for chlamydia and gonorrhea (109.0% increase); and from 14.8% (95% CI, 3.2%-26.5%) to 30.5% (95% CI, 26.7%-34.3%) for HIV (132.4% increase). CONCLUSIONS: FQHCs participating in this initiative reported improved capacity to provide culturally affirming care and targeted screening for LGBT patients.

Improving Pain Care with Project ECHO in Community Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is an extremely common complaint in primary care, and patient outcomes are often suboptimal. This project evaluated the impact of Project ECHO Pain videoconference case-based learning sessions on knowledge and quality of pain care in two Federally Qualified Health Centers. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, pre-post intervention, with comparison group. SETTING: Two large, multisite federally qualified health centers in Connecticut and Arizona. SUBJECTS: Intervention (N = 10) and comparison (N = 10) primary care providers. METHODS: Primary care providers attended 48 weekly Project ECHO Pain sessions between January and December 2013, led by a multidisciplinary pain specialty team. Surveys and focus groups assessed providers' pain-related knowledge and self-efficacy. Electronic health record data were analyzed to evaluate opioid prescribing and specialty referrals. RESULTS: Compared with control, primary care providers in the intervention had a significantly greater increase in pain-related knowledge and self-efficacy. Providers who attended ECHO were more likely to use formal assessment tools and opioid agreements and refer to behavioral health and physical therapy compared with control providers. Opioid prescribing decreased significantly more among providers in the intervention compared with those in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is an extremely common and challenging problem, particularly among vulnerable patients such as those cared for at the more than 1,200 Federally Qualified Health Centers in the United States. In this study, attendance at weekly Project ECHO Pain sessions not only improved knowledge and self-efficacy, but also altered prescribing and referral patterns, suggesting that knowledge acquired during ECHO sessions translated into practice changes.

Nine-year substance use treatment outcomes with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in a federally qualified health center.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in primary care helps meet treatment demand, but few studies examine long-term treatment retention among medically-underserved primary care patients. METHODS: This 9-year retrospective study assessed overall retention at 6 months, and yearly up to 9 years, among 1451 patients with at least 6 months of buprenorphine prescription data from a federally-qualified health center (FQHC). We also examined whether patients who had gaps in treatment (>14 days without medication) later returned to care. Associations with treatment retention over total time in care were assessed. RESULTS: On average, patients received buprenorphine treatment for 2.26 years. Among patients who experienced gaps in treatment but returned to care within 90 days, 64% were still receiving buprenorphine at six months (n=930 of 1451), and 70% (n =118 of 169) at 9 years, with an average yearly interval retention of 69% (range: 58-74%). Patients were on MOUD treatment and not in a gap about 81% of the time, and averaged 1.0 gap per patient per year (SD: 1.09; range 0-7.87). The mean gap length over the treatment period was 33.16 days. Older age, higher percentages of negative opioid tests, negative cocaine tests, and positive buprenorphine tests, and having diabetes were associated with longer treatment retention. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid use disorder (OUD) can be treated successfully in primary care FQHCs. Treatment gaps are common and reflect the chronic relapsing nature of OUD.

A qualitative assessment of factors contributing to Spanish-speaking federally qualified health center patients' chronic pain experiences.

People of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (Latinx people) experience pain diagnosis, treatment, and care disparities relative to non-Latinx Whites. Those whose preferred language is Spanish may experience additional disparities when receiving care in a language-discordant environment. In order to better understand medically underserved Spanish-speaking Latinx patients' pain care experience in primary care, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with federally qualified health center staff members (n = 9) and Spanish-speaking adult Latinx patients with chronic pain (n = 12) to capture data on their perspectives. Interview data were mapped to the individual (microsystem), interpersonal (mesosystem), organizational (exosystem), and environmental (macrosystem) levels of Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory and analyzed using thematic content analysis informed by the Framework Method. Findings suggest that Spanish-speaking patients and English-speaking care team members may interpret information about pain state and severity differently, may have misaligned expectations about care, treatment methodologies, and treatment goals, and may experience difficulty forming a mutual understanding during health care encounters due to cross-linguistic and cross-cultural miscommunication. Patients preferred to describe their pain in words rather than with numbers or standardized scales, and both patients and frontline care team members expressed frustration with medical interpretation services, which added time and complexity to visits. Patients and health center staff emphasized the diversity of experiences among Spanish-speaking Latinx people, and the need to account for both linguistic and cultural differences during care encounters. Both groups supported hiring more Spanish-speaking, Latinx healthcare personnel who better resemble the patient population, which has the potential to improve linguistic and cultural concordance and competence, with the aim of improving care outcomes and patient satisfaction. Further study is warranted to examine how linguistic and cultural communication barriers impact pain assessment and treatment in primary care, the extent to which patients feel understood by their care teams, and their confidence in their ability to understand and interpret treatment recommendations.

Impact of eConsults on Clinical Care in Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Primary Care Provider Behavior.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Asynchronous electronic consultations (eConsults) support primary care providers (PCPs) by providing rapid specialist feedback and improve medically underserved patients' access to care. METHODS: This cross-sectional study assessed all eConsults requested over a one-year period at a multi-site federally qualified health center in Texas. We analyzed eConsult content and quality and conducted chart reviews for a randomly selected subsample (n = 100) to determine whether PCPs implemented specialists' recommendations within 90 days. Semi-structured interviews with PCPs assessed their ability and willingness to follow recommendations. RESULTS: There were 367 eConsults submitted by 25 PCPs across 15 adult medical and surgical specialties. Of the 100 charts reviewed n = 77 (77.0%) contained documentation indicating that the PCP had followed at least 1 of the specialist's recommendations within 90 days. In two-thirds of the cases (n = 66, 66%) the reviewing specialist indicated that a face-to-face referral was not needed. PCPs were most likely to follow recommendations for new medications and least likely to document that they had obtained additional patient history. PCPs noted that they were sometimes unable to follow recommendations when patients could not afford or access treatment or did not return for follow up care, or when they felt that the specialist did not address their specific question. CONCLUSIONS: eConsults delivered to medically underserved patients in primary care help PCPs provide timely care for their patients. PCPs utilized a broad range of eConsult specialties and generally implemented eConsult specialists' recommendations within 90 days.

Effects of walnuts on endothelial function in overweight adults with visceral obesity: a randomized, controlled, crossover trial.

OBJECTIVES: Metabolic syndrome is a precursor of diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Walnut ingestion has been shown to reduce CVD risk indices in diabetes. This randomized controlled crossover trial was performed to investigate the effects of daily walnut consumption on endothelial function and other biomarkers of cardiac risk in a population of overweight individuals with visceral adiposity. METHODS: Forty-six overweight adults (average age, 57.4 years; 28 women, 18 men) with elevated waist circumference and 1 or more additional signs of metabolic syndrome were randomly assigned to two 8-week sequences of walnut-enriched ad libitum diet and ad libitum diet without walnuts, which were separated by a 4-week washout period. The primary outcome measure was the change in flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) of the brachial artery. Secondary measures included serum lipid panel, fasting glucose and insulin, Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance values, blood pressure, and anthropometric measures. RESULTS: FMD improved significantly from baseline when subjects consumed a walnut-enriched diet as compared with the control diet (1.4% ± 2.4% versus 0.3% ± 1.5%; p = 0.019). Beneficial trends in systolic blood pressure reduction were seen, and maintenance of the baseline anthropometric values was also observed. Other measures were unaltered. CONCLUSION: Daily ingestion of 56 g of walnuts improves endothelial function in overweight adults with visceral adiposity. The addition of walnuts to the diet does not lead to weight gain. Further study of the potential role of walnut intake in diabetes and CVD prevention is warranted.

Qualitative inquiry into barriers and facilitators to transforming primary care for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in US federally qualified health centres.

OBJECTIVES: Health systems must rapidly move knowledge into practice to address disparities impacting sexual and gender minority (SGM) patients. This qualitative study explores barriers and facilitators that arose during an initiative to improve care for SGM patients in federally qualified health centres (FQHCs) from the perspectives of FQHC staff. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative content analysis, using a general inductive approach, of secondary data from transcripts of intervention events offered to FQHC staff and semistructured interviews with staff and FQHC leadership during the intervention. SETTING: 10 FQHCs from nine states in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: FQHC quality improvement (QI) and clinical care staff, and leaders at each FQHC. INTERVENTIONS: The transforming care for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people QI initiative combined two evidence-based programmes, Learning Collaborative (LC) and Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO), to assist primary care health centres in developing capacity to identify SGM patients, monitor their health and care, and improve disparities. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was identification of barriers and facilitators to implementing initiatives to improve care for SGM patients. The secondary outcome was clarification of how intervention participants used Project ECHO sessions versus LC meetings to obtain information that influenced implementation of the initiative at their FQHC. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators mapped to two major themes: 'Clinical' (patients' health, wellness, and available treatment) and Health Systems and Institutional Culture (FQHC operations, and customs and social institutions within the FQHCs and in the external environment). Common 'Clinical' inquiries were for assistance with behavioural health, pre-exposure prophylaxis and transgender hormone therapy. Prevalent facilitators included workflow change and staff training, while adapting electronic health records for data collection, decision support and data extraction was the most prevalent barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Project ECHO and LC provided complimentary forums to explore clinical and operational changes needed to improve care for SGM at FQHCs.

Are Pain Screening and Functional Assessment Results Associated with New Diagnoses and Treatment for Pain in Primary Care? An Observational Study.

Purpose: To determine if pain screening and functional assessment results are associated with new diagnoses and treatment for pain in primary care. Patients and Methods: Observational study at 13 primary care sites of a statewide federally qualified health center that implemented routine screening and functional assessment for all adults in primary care. The study group included 10,091 adults aged 18+ who had an in-person visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, where they screened positive for chronic pain and completed a 3-question functional assessment with the PEG (Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity). Multivariate logistic regressions quantified associations between pain frequency, diagnosis and treatment, sociodemographics, comorbidities, and self-reported severe pain impairment with pain diagnoses and treatment documented after screening. Results: Patients were mostly women (60.3%), Latinx (41.1%), English-speaking (80.1%), and Medicaid-insured (62.0%); they averaged 49.1 years old (SD = 13.7 years). Patients with severe pain impairment or who were Latinx were more likely to get a newly documented pain diagnosis (absolute risk difference [ARD]: 13.2% and 8.6%, ps < 0.0001), while patients with mental health/substance use or medical comorbidities were less likely (ARDs: -20.0% to -6.2%, ps < 0.001). Factors most consistently associated with treatment were prior treatment of the same modality (4 of 7 treatments, ARDs = 27.3% to 44.1%, ps <0.0001), new pain diagnosis (5 of 7, ARDs = 3.2% to 27.4%, ps <0.001), and severe impairment (4 of 7, ARDs = 2.6% to 6.5%, ps < 0.0001). A new diagnosis had the strongest association with non-opioid pain analgesics and physical medicine (ARD = 27.0% and 27.4%, p < 0.0001). Latinx patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesics and mental health/substance use medications and counseling (ARDs = -3.3% to 7.5%, ps <0.0001). Conclusion: Screening and assessment with patient-reported tools may influence pain care. Care for Latinx patients differed from non-Latinx white patients.

Rectal specimen self-collection for chlamydia and gonorrhea screening: a cross-sectional feasibility study at a community health center.

BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk for extra-genital sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Without extra-genital screening, many chlamydia and gonorrhea infections would be missed among MSM. Yet, many barriers exist to extra-genital testing, and, in particular, to rectal collection. Self-collection increases screening and detection of asymptomatic chlamydia and gonorrhea among at-risk MSM and transgender women. This feasibility study assessed use of rectal self-collection and its acceptance among patients and primary care providers (PCPs) at a large, general practice community health center. The primary objective of this project was to assess the feasibility of including rectal self-collection as part of an implementation study looking to embed an STI care program in a safety-net primary care setting that would shift routine screening tasks to non-provider clinical team members such as medical assistants and nurses. METHODS: Three PCPs identified and offered rectal self-collection to their MSM and transgender female patients who were due for routine or risk-based STI screening. For those patients who elected to participate in the study, the PCP's medical assistant (MA) reviewed the self-collection instructions with them as part of their routine preventive care duties, and patients collected their own sample. Patients and PCPs completed brief cross-sectional surveys assessing the self-collection process. RESULTS: Of 1191 patients with sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data on file who were seen for a medical visit by one of the three PCPs, 87 (7.3%) identified as MSM or transgender female. Seventy-five were due for rectal screening, of whom 33 (44%) were offered and completed rectal self-collection. Survey results indicated that self-collection was acceptable to and preferred over clinician-collection by both PCPs and patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that rectal self-collection is feasible as part of STI screening in a high-volume primary care setting, and can be administered as part of the clinical tasks that MAs routinely conduct. The overall acceptance by both PCPs and patients will allow the inclusion of rectal self-collection in an implementation study looking to increase STI screening at a large community health center by facilitating MA-led collection during medical provider visits and by establishing standalone nurse-led STI visits.

Evaluation of a Chronic Pain Screening Program Implemented in Primary Care.

Importance: Although pain is among the most common symptoms reported by patients, primary care practitioners (PCPs) face substantial challenges identifying and assessing pain. Objective: To evaluate a 2-step process for chronic pain screening and follow-up in primary care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of patients with a primary care visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, was conducted at a statewide, multisite federally qualified health center. Participants included 68 PCPs and 58 medical assistants from 13 sites who implemented the screening process in primary care, and 38 866 patients aged 18 years or older with a primary care visit during that time. Exposures: Single-question assessment of pain frequency, followed by a 3-question PEG (pain, enjoyment of life, general activity) functional assessment for patients with chronic pain. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adherence to a 2-step chronic pain screening and PEG process, proportion of patients with positive screening results, mean PEG pain severity greater than or equal to 7, and documented chronic painful condition diagnosis in patient's electronic health record between 1 year before and 90 days after screening. Results: Of 38 866 patients with a primary care visit, 31 600 patients (81.3%) underwent screening. Mean (SD) age was 46.2 (15.4) years, and most were aged 35 to 54 years (12 987 [41.1%]), female (18 436 [58.3%]), Hispanic (14 809 [46.9%]), and English-speaking (22 519 [71.3%]), and had Medicaid insurance (18 442 [58.4%]). A total of 10 262 participants (32.5%) screened positive and, of these, 9701 (94.5%) completed the PEG questionnaire. PEG responses indicated severe pain interference with activities of daily living (PEG ≥7) in 5735 (59.1%) participants. A chronic painful condition had not been diagnosed in 4257 (43.9%) patients in the year before screening. A new chronic painful condition was diagnosed at screening or within 90 days in 2250 (52.9%) patients. Care teams found the workflow acceptable, but cited lengthy administration time, challenges with comprehension of the PEG questions, and limited comprehensiveness as implementation barriers. Conclusions and Relevance: A systematic, 2-step process for chronic pain screening and functional assessment in primary care appeared to identify patients with previously undocumented chronic pain and was feasible to implement. Patient-provided information on the frequency of pain, pain level, and pain interference can help improve the assessment and monitoring of pain in primary care.