Safety Net Primary Care Capabilities After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) provide care to 30 million patients in the US and have shown better outcomes and processes than other practice types. Little is known about how the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to FQHC capabilities compared with other practices. Objective: To compare postpandemic operational characteristics and capabilities of FQHCs with non-FQHC safety net practices and non-FQHC, non-safety net practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationally representative survey conducted from June 2022 to February 2023 with an oversampling of safety net practices in the US included practice leaders working in stratified random selection of practices based on FQHC status, Area Deprivation Index category, and ownership type per a health care network dataset. Exposures: Practice type: FQHC vs non-FQHC safety net and non-FQHC practices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary care capabilities, including 2 measures of access and 11 composite measures. Results: A total of 1245 practices (221 FQHC and 1024 non-FQHC) responded of 3498 practices sampled. FQHCs were more likely to be independently owned and have received COVID-19 funding. FQHCs and non-FQHC safety net practices were more likely to be in rural areas. FQHCs significantly outperformed non-FQHCs on several capabilities even after controlling for practice size and ownership, including behavioral health provision (mean score, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.51-0.56), culturally informed services (mean score, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.53-0.58), screening for social needs (mean score, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.39-0.47), social needs referrals (mean score, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48-0.57), social needs referral follow-up (mean score, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.36), and shared decision-making and motivational interviewing training (mean score, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.51-0.56). No differences were found in behavioral and substance use screening, care processes for patients with complex and high levels of need, use of patient-reported outcome measures, decision aid use, or after-hours access. Across all practices, most of the examined capabilities showed room for improvement. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey study suggest that FQHCs outperformed non-FQHC practices on important care processes while serving a patient population with lower incomes who are medically underserved compared with patients in other practice types. Legislation to expand funding for the FQHC program should improve services for underserved populations and target current non-FQHC safety net practices to serve these populations. Increased support for these practices could improve primary care for rural populations.

A new model of online health care delivery science education for mid-career health care professionals.

Health care delivery science focuses on ways to improve health and health care services provided to individuals and populations. Health care professionals must be trained in health care delivery science in order to diagnose and treat the sources of health care system dysfunction and achieve better outcomes while controlling costs. The ideal model for health care delivery science training has not been fully defined, but doing so is critical especially for frontline mid-career health care professionals whose original clinical training omitted these concepts. To better prepare leaders to address the complex challenges of health care, we created a novel hybrid residential/online 18-month master's degree in health care delivery science. Key strengths of the program are the curriculum, pedagogy, teaching team and close-knit cohort. Here, we discuss the program design rationale and six years of evaluation data of a novel master of health care delivery science program. Novel online education in health care delivery science can empower inter-professional leaders in multiple leadership positions throughout health care to improve the United States health care system.

Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the quality of press releases issued by medical journals can influence the quality of associated newspaper stories. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of medical journal press releases and associated news stories. SETTING: We reviewed consecutive issues (going backwards from January 2009) of five major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine) to identify the first 100 original research articles with quantifiable outcomes and that had generated any newspaper coverage (unique stories ≥100 words long). We identified 759 associated newspaper stories using Lexis Nexis and Factiva searches, and 68 journal press releases using Eurekalert and journal website searches. Two independent research assistants assessed the quality of journal articles, press releases, and a stratified random sample of associated newspaper stories (n=343) by using a structured coding scheme for the presence of specific quality measures: basic study facts, quantification of the main result, harms, and limitations. MAIN OUTCOME: Proportion of newspaper stories with specific quality measures (adjusted for whether the quality measure was present in the journal article's abstract or editor note). RESULTS: We recorded a median of three newspaper stories per journal article (range 1-72). Of 343 stories analysed, 71% reported on articles for which medical journals had issued press releases. 9% of stories quantified the main result with absolute risks when this information was not in the press release, 53% did so when it was in the press release (relative risk 6.0, 95% confidence interval 2.3 to 15.4), and 20% when no press release was issued (2.2, 0.83 to 6.1). 133 (39%) stories reported on research describing beneficial interventions. 24% mentioned harms (or specifically declared no harms) when harms were not mentioned in the press release, 68% when mentioned in the press release (2.8, 1.1 to 7.4), and 36% when no press release was issued (1.5, 0.49 to 4.4). 256 (75%) stories reported on research with important limitations. 16% reported any limitations when limitations were not mentioned in the press release, 48% when mentioned in the press release (3.0, 1.5 to 6.2), and 21% if no press release was issued (1.3, 0.50 to 3.6). CONCLUSION: High quality press releases issued by medical journals seem to make the quality of associated newspaper stories better, whereas low quality press releases might make them worse.

Fewer hospitalizations result when primary care is highly integrated into a continuing care retirement community.

Meeting the medical and social needs of elderly people is likely to be costly, disruptive, and at odds with personal preferences if efforts to do so are not well coordinated. We compared two different models of primary care in four different continuing care retirement communities. In the first model, used in one community, the physicians and two part-time nurse practitioners delivered clinical care only at that site, covered all settings within it, and provided all after-hours coverage. In the second model, used in three communities, on-site primary care physician hours were limited; the same physicians also had independent practices outside the retirement community; and after-hours calls were covered by all members of the practices, including physicians who did not practice on site. We found that residents in the first model had two to three times fewer hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Only 5 percent of those who died did so in a hospital, compared to 15 percent at the other sites and 27 percent nationally. These findings provide insight into what is possible when medical care is highly integrated into a residential retirement setting.

Increased risk of nursing home admission among middle aged and older adults with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Cross-sectional data indicate that persons with serious mental illness have increased risk of institution-based care, yet little is known about the long-term course of nursing home placement for persons with schizophrenia. This study describes nursing home entrance over a 10-year period among community residing Medicaid enrollees with schizophrenia compared with Medicaid enrollees with no mental illness. METHODS: The authors analyzed claims of 7,937 New Hampshire Medicaid beneficiaries aged 40 and older. Claims were followed annually from 1996 to 2005 to determine nursing home admission. Schizophrenia was identified from International Classification of Diseases: 9th Edition codes and used to model nursing home admission controlling for medical severity, physical disability, sex, and age. Cox proportional hazard models were run for the entire sample and then separately for middle-aged (40-64 years) and older-aged (65 years and older) subgroups. RESULTS: Persons with schizophrenia enter nursing homes earlier (median age 65) than persons with no mental illness (median age: 80). The greatest relative disparity occurs at middle age (40-64 years), where nursing home admission risk was 3.90 (95% confidence interval = 2.86-5.31) times greater for persons with schizophrenia than for persons with no mental illness. CONCLUSIONS: Middle-aged persons with schizophrenia have almost four times greater likelihood of early institutionalization in nursing homes compared with their same age peers with no mental illness. Efforts to prevent/reduce unwarranted nursing home admission among persons with schizophrenia should focus on health status in the fifth decade of life.