The Community-Based Health Workforce in Public Health and Health Care Delivery.

CONTEXT: The "community-based workforce" is an umbrella term used by a workgroup of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leaders to characterize a variety of job titles and descriptions for positions in the public health, health care delivery, and human service sectors across local communities. APPROACH: Definitions, expectations of the scope of work, and funding opportunities for this workforce vary. To address some of these challenges, a workgroup of HHS agencies met to define the roles of this workforce and identify existing opportunities for training, career advancement, and compensation. DISCUSSION: The community-based workforce has demonstrated success in improving poor health outcomes and addressing the social determinants of health for decades. However, descriptions of this workforce, expectations of their roles, and funding opportunities vary. The HHS workgroup identified that comprehensive approaches are needed within HHS and via public health sectors to meet these challenges and opportunities. CONCLUSION: Using the common term "community-based workforce" across HHS can encourage alignment and collaboration. As the environment for this public health and health care community-based workforce shifts, it will be important to understand the value and opportunities available to ensure long-term sustainability for this workforce to continue to advance health equity.

Assessing and Expanding the Evidence Base for Project ECHO and ECHO-Like Models: Findings of a Technical Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: In 2003, Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) began using technology-enabled collaborative models of care to help general practitioners in rural settings manage hepatitis C. Today, ECHO and ECHO-like models (EELM) have been applied to a variety of settings and health conditions, but the evidence base underlying EELM is thin, despite widespread enthusiasm for the model. METHODS: In April 2018, a technical expert panel (TEP) meeting was convened to assess the current evidence base for EELM and identify ways to strengthen it. RESULTS: TEP members identified four strategies for future implementors and evaluators of EELM to address key challenges to conducting rigorous evaluations: (1) develop a clear understanding of EELM and what they are intended to accomplish; (2) emphasize rigorous reporting of EELM program characteristics; (3) use a wider variety of study designs to fill key knowledge gaps about EELM; (4) address structural barriers through capacity building and stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Building a strong evidence base will help leverage the innovative aspects of EELM by better understanding how, why, and in what contexts EELM improve care access, quality, and delivery, while also improving provider satisfaction and capacity.

Impact of Project ECHO Models of Medical Tele-Education: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) and related models of medical tele-education are rapidly expanding; however, their effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review examines the effectiveness of ECHO and ECHO-like medical tele-education models of healthcare delivery in terms of improved provider- and patient-related outcomes. METHODS: We searched English-language studies in PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases from 1 January 2007 to 1 December 2018 as well as bibliography review. Two reviewers independently screened citations for peer-reviewed publications reporting provider- and/or patient-related outcomes of technology-enabled collaborative learning models that satisfied six criteria of the ECHO framework. Reviewers then independently abstracted data, assessed study quality, and rated strength of evidence (SOE) based on Cochrane GRADE criteria. RESULTS: Data from 52 peer-reviewed articles were included. Forty-three reported provider-related outcomes; 15 reported patient-related outcomes. Studies on provider-related outcomes suggested favorable results across three domains: satisfaction, increased knowledge, and increased clinical confidence. However, SOE was low, relying primarily on self-reports and surveys with low response rates. One randomized trial has been conducted. For patient-related outcomes, 11 of 15 studies incorporated a comparison group; none involved randomization. Four studies reported care outcomes, while 11 reported changes in care processes. Evidence suggested effectiveness at improving outcomes for patients with hepatitis C, chronic pain, dementia, and type 2 diabetes. Evidence is generally low-quality, retrospective, non-experimental, and subject to social desirability bias and low survey response rates. DISCUSSION: The number of studies examining ECHO and ECHO-like models of medical tele-education has been modest compared with the scope and scale of implementation throughout the USA and internationally. Given the potential of ECHO to broaden access to healthcare in rural, remote, and underserved communities, more studies are needed to evaluate effectiveness. This need for evidence follows similar patterns to other service delivery models in the literature.

Characteristics of Primary Care Physicians in Patient-centered Medical Home Practices: United States, 2013.

Objective-This report describes the characteristics of primary care physicians in patient-centered medical home (PCMH) practices and compares these characteristics with those of primary care physicians in non-PCMH practices. Methods-The data presented in this report were collected during the induction interview for the 2013 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a national probability sample survey of nonfederal physicians who see patients in office settings in the United States. Analyses exclude anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, and physicians in community health centers. In this report, PCMH status is self-defined as having been certified by one of the following organizations: Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, The Joint Commission, National Committee for Quality Assurance, URAC, or other certifying bodies. Estimates exclude physicians missing information on PCMH status. Sample data are weighted to produce national estimates of physicians and characteristics of their practices. Results-In 2013, 18.0% of office-based primary care physicians worked in practices certified as PCMHs. A higher percentage of primary care physicians in PCMH practices (68.8%) had at least one physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or certified nurse midwife on staff compared with non-PCMH practices (47.7%). A higher percentage of primary care physicians in PCMH practices reported electronic transmission (69.6%) as the primary method for receiving information on patients hospitalized or seen in emergency departments compared with non-PCMH practices (41.5%). The percentage of primary care physicians in practices reporting quality measures or quality indicators to payers or organizations monitoring health care quality was higher in PCMH practices (86.8%) compared with non-PCMH practices (70.2%).