The Work-life Check-ins randomized controlled trial: A leader-based adaptive, semi-structured burnout intervention in primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: Burnout in primary care undermines worker well-being and patient care. Many factors contribute to burnout, including high workloads, emotional stress, and unsupportive supervisors. Formative evidence suggests that burnout might be reduced if clinic leaders hold quarterly and brief (∼30 min) one-on-one check-ins with team members to acknowledge and address work-life stressors (e.g., schedules, workflow breakdowns, time off requests). This paper describes the intervention protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the effectiveness and process of the check-ins in reducing burnout among primary care professionals. METHODS: Two-arm RCT conducted at 12 primary care clinics of a healthcare system in the Pacific Northwest. Six clinics received an adaptive design, semi-structured intervention, including predefined training modules with evidence-based tactics to reduce burnout through the check-ins, followed by clinic-specific feedback sessions prior to offering and conducting quarterly leader-employee check-ins. Six clinics were randomized as waitlist controls. Burnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) at baseline and at the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include organizational constraints, psychological safety, and supervisor support. Multilevel modeling and qualitative methods were applied to evaluate the effects and process of the intervention. CONCLUSION: By focusing on modifiable work-life factors such as stressors and supervisor support, the check-ins intervention aims to reduce burnout rates among primary care professionals. Findings from this trial will shed light on the conditions upon which check-ins might reduce burnout. Results will also inform policies and interventions aimed at improving mental health and well-being in primary care settings. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: ID NCT05436548.

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.

Association of Early Childhood Wheeze and Asthma Diagnosis Documentation by Race, Ethnicity, and Language in Children.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether electronic health record (EHR) documentation of certain early childhood risk factors for asthma, such as wheeze differ by race, ethnicity, and language group, and whether these children have different subsequent asthma prevalences. METHODS: We used EHR data from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center (ADVANCE) Clinical Research Network from children receiving care in US community health centers (n = 71,259 children) across 21 states to examine the presence of ICD-coded documentation of early childhood wheeze and its association with subsequent asthma diagnosis documentation in the EHR by race/ethnicity/language. RESULTS: ICD-coded wheeze was present in 2 to 3% of each race/ethnicity/language group. Among the total sample, 18.5% had asthma diagnosed after age 4. The adjusted prevalence of subsequent asthma diagnosis was greater in children with wheeze than those without. Odds of asthma diagnosis did not differ among children in all race/ethnicity/language groups with early childhood wheeze. Non-Latino Black children without wheeze had higher odds of asthma (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.08-1.32) compared with non-Latino White children without wheeze. DISCUSSION: In US community health centers which serve medically underserved populations, EHR documentation of early childhood wheeze was uncommon and did not differ significantly among race/ethnicity/language groups. Differences in asthma diagnosis in Latinos may not stem from differences in early-life wheeze documentation. However, our findings suggest that there may be opportunities for improvement in early asthma symptom recognition for non-Latino Black children, especially in those without early childhood wheeze.

Screening for Hepatitis C Among Community Health Center Patients by Ethnicity and Language Preference.

Introduction: Hepatitis C virus is associated with high morbidity and mortality-chronic liver disease is a leading cause of death among Latinos in the U.S. Screening for hepatitis C virus in community health center settings, which serve a disproportionate percentage of Latinos, is essential to eradicating hepatitis C virus infection. We assessed hepatitis C virus screening disparities in adults served by community health centers by ethnicity and language preference. Methods: This was an observational cohort study (spanning 2013-2017) of adults born in 1945-1965 in the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network electronic health record data set. Our exposure of interest was race/ethnicity and language preference (non-Hispanic White, Latino English preferred, Latino Spanish preferred). Our primary outcome was the relative hazard of hepatitis C virus screening, estimated using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: A total of 182,002 patients met the study criteria and included 60% non-Hispanic Whites, 29% Latino Spanish preferred, and 11% Latino English preferred. In total, 9% received hepatitis C virus screening, and 2.4% were diagnosed with hepatitis C virus. Latino English-preferred patients had lower rates of screening than both non-Hispanic Whites and Latino Spanish preferred (5.5% vs 9.4% vs 9.6%, respectively). Latino English preferred had lower hazards of hepatitis C virus screening than non-Hispanic Whites (adjusted hazard ratio=0.56, 95% CI=0.44, 0.72), and Latino Spanish preferred had similar hazards of hepatitis C virus screening (adjusted hazard ratio=1.11, 95% CI=0.88, 1.41). Conclusions: We found that in a large community health center network, adult Latinos who preferred English had lower hazards of hepatitis C virus screening than non-Hispanic Whites, whereas Latinos who preferred Spanish had hazards of screening similar to those of non-Hispanic Whites. The overall prevalence of hepatitis C virus screening was low. Further work on the role of language preference in hepatitis C virus screening is needed to better equip primary care providers to provide this recommended preventive service in culturally relevant ways.

Uptake of a Cervical Cancer Clinical Decision Support Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools that provide point-of-care reminders of patients' care needs may improve rates of guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening. However, uptake of such electronic health record (EHR)-based tools in primary care practices is often low. This study describes the frequency of factors associated with, and barriers and facilitators to adoption of a cervical cancer screening CDS tool (CC-tool) implemented in a network of community health centers. METHODS: This mixed-methods sequential explanatory study reports on CC-tool use among 480 community-based clinics, located across 18 states. Adoption of the CC-tool was measured as any instance of tool use (i.e., entry of cervical cancer screening results or follow-up plan) and as monthly tool use rates from November 1, 2018 (tool release date) to December 31, 2020. Adjusted odds and rates of tool use were evaluated using logistic and negative-binomial regression. Feedback from nine clinic staff representing six clinics during user-centered design sessions and semi-structured interviews with eight clinic staff from two additional clinics were conducted to assess barriers and facilitators to tool adoption. RESULTS: The CC-tool was used ≥1 time in 41% of study clinics during the analysis period. Clinics that ever used the tool and those with greater monthly tool use had, on average, more encounters, more patients from households at >138% federal poverty level, fewer pediatric encounters, higher up-to-date cervical cancer screening rates, and higher rates of abnormal cervical cancer screening results. Qualitative data indicated barriers to tool adoption, including lack of knowledge of the tool's existence, understanding of its functionalities, and training on its use. CONCLUSION: Without effective systems for informing users about new EHR functions, new or updated EHR tools are unlikely to be widely adopted, reducing their potential to improve health care quality and outcomes.

Role of ethnicity/language in documented rates of pediatric asthma prescription refills.

OBJECTIVE: Medication maintenance is critical in the management of asthma. We investigated the differences in electronic health record (EHR) documentation of medication refills for Spanish- and English-speaking Latino children and non-Hispanic white children by examining rates of albuterol rescue inhaler refills from 2005 to 2017, and and inhaled corticosteroid refills from 2015 to 2017 in a multi-state network of community health centers (CHCs). METHODS: We used data from the ADVANCE network of CHCs. Our sample consisted of children aged 3-17, with a diagnosis of asthma and either albuterol or inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions (n = 39,162; n = 4,738 children, respectively). Negative binomial regression was used to calculate rates of refills per prescription adjusted for relevant patient-level covariates. Analyses stratified by asthma severity were also conducted. RESULTS: English-speaking Latino children had lower rates of albuterol refills compared with non-Hispanic white children (rate ratio [RR] = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-0.98), a trend that persisted among children with moderate/severe persistent asthma severity (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.95). Spanish-speaking Latino and non-Hispanic white children had similar albuterol refills. Inhaled corticosteroid refill rates were comparable between all groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a multi-state network, these findings suggest that CHCs deliver equitable asthma care related to prescription refills between their Latino and white patients, but there is still opportunity for providers to ensure that their English-speaking Latino patients have access to necessary emergency asthma medication.

How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?

INTRODUCTION: To examine the association of prior investment on the effectiveness of organizations delivering large-scale external support to improve primary care. METHODS: Mixed-methods study of 7 EvidenceNOW grantees (henceforth, Cooperatives) and their recruited practices (n = 1720). Independent Variable: Cooperatives's experience level prior to EvidenceNOW, defined as a sustained track record in delivering large-scale quality improvement (QI) to primary care practices (high, medium, or low). Dependent Variables: Implementation of external support, measured as facilitation dose; effectiveness at improving (1) clinical quality, measured as practices' performance on Aspirin, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, and Smoking (ABCS); and (2) practice capacity, measured using the Adaptive Reserve (AR) score and Change Process Capacity Questionnaire (CPCQ). Data were analyzed using multivariable linear regressions and a qualitative inductive approach. RESULTS: Cooperatives with High (vs low) levels of prior experience with and investment in large-scale QI before EvidenceNOW recruited more geographically dispersed and diverse practices, with lower baseline ABCS performance (differences ranging from 2.8% for blood pressure to 41.5% for smoking), delivered more facilitation (mean=+20.3 hours, P = .04), and made greater improvements in practices' QI capacity (CPCQ: +2.04, P < .001) and smoking performance (+6.43%, P = .003). These Cooperatives had established networks of facilitators at the start of EvidenceNOW and leadership experienced in supporting this workforce, which explained their better recruitment, delivery of facilitation, and improvement in outcomes. DISCUSSION: Long-term investment that establishes regionwide organizations with infrastructure and experience to support primary care practices in QI is associated with more consistent delivery of facilitation support, and greater improvement in practice capacity and some clinical outcomes.

Effective Facilitator Strategies for Supporting Primary Care Practice Change: A Mixed Methods Study.

PURPOSE: Practice facilitation is an evidence-informed implementation strategy to support quality improvement (QI) and aid practices in aligning with best evidence. Few studies, particularly of this size and scope, identify strategies that contribute to facilitator effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted a sequential mixed methods study, analyzing data from EvidenceNOW, a large-scale QI initiative. Seven regional cooperatives employed 162 facilitators to work with 1,630 small or medium-sized primary care practices. Main analyses were based on facilitators who worked with at least 4 practices. Facilitators were defined as more effective if at least 75% of their practices improved on at least 1 outcome measure-aspirin use, blood pressure control, smoking cessation counseling (ABS), or practice change capacity, measured using Change Process Capability Questionnaire-from baseline to follow-up. Facilitators were defined as less effective if less than 50% of their practices improved on these outcomes. Using an immersion crystallization and comparative approach, we analyzed observational and interview data to identify strategies associated with more effective facilitators. RESULTS: Practices working with more effective facilitators had a 3.6% greater change in the mean percentage of patients meeting the composite ABS measure compared with practices working with less effective facilitators (P <.001). More effective facilitators cultivated motivation by tailoring QI work and addressing resistance, guided practices to think critically, and provided accountability to support change, using these strategies in combination. They were able to describe their work in detail. In contrast, less effective facilitators seldom used these strategies and described their work in general terms. Facilitator background, experience, and work on documentation did not differentiate between more and less effective facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitation strategies that differentiate more and less effective facilitators have implications for enhancing facilitator development and training, and can assist all facilitators to more effectively support practice changes.

How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?

INTRODUCTION: To examine the association of prior investment on the effectiveness of organizations delivering large-scale external support to improve primary care. METHODS: Mixed-methods study of 7 EvidenceNOW grantees (henceforth, Cooperatives) and their recruited practices (n = 1720). Independent Variable: Cooperatives's experience level prior to EvidenceNOW, defined as a sustained track record in delivering large-scale quality improvement (QI) to primary care practices (high, medium, or low). Dependent Variables: Implementation of external support, measured as facilitation dose; effectiveness at improving (1) clinical quality, measured as practices' performance on Aspirin, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, and Smoking (ABCS); and (2) practice capacity, measured using the Adaptive Reserve (AR) score and Change Process Capacity Questionnaire (CPCQ). Data were analyzed using multivariable linear regressions and a qualitative inductive approach. RESULTS: Cooperatives with High (vs low) levels of prior experience with and investment in large-scale QI before EvidenceNOW recruited more geographically dispersed and diverse practices, with lower baseline ABCS performance (differences ranging from 2.8% for blood pressure to 41.5% for smoking), delivered more facilitation (mean=+20.3 hours, P = .04), and made greater improvements in practices' QI capacity (CPCQ: +2.04, P < .001) and smoking performance (+6.43%, P = .003). These Cooperatives had established networks of facilitators at the start of EvidenceNOW and leadership experienced in supporting this workforce, which explained their better recruitment, delivery of facilitation, and improvement in outcomes. DISCUSSION: Long-term investment that establishes regionwide organizations with infrastructure and experience to support primary care practices in QI is associated with more consistent delivery of facilitation support, and greater improvement in practice capacity and some clinical outcomes.

Diabetes Screening and Monitoring Among Older Mexican-Origin Populations in the U.S.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study is to examine diabetes screening and monitoring among Latino individuals as compared with non-Latino White individuals and to better understand how we can use neighborhood data to address diabetes care inequities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study linked with neighborhood-level Latino subgroup data obtained from the American Community Survey. We used generalized estimating equation negative binomial and logistic regression models adjusted for patient-level covariates to compare annual rates of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) monitoring for those with diabetes and odds of HbA1c screening for those without diabetes by ethnicity and among Latinos living in neighborhoods with low (0.0-22.0%), medium (22.0-55.7%), and high (55.7-98.0%) population percent of Mexican origin. RESULTS: Latino individuals with diabetes had 18% higher rates of HbA1c testing than non-Latino White individuals with diabetes (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 1.18 [95% CI 1.07-1.29]), and Latinos without diabetes had 25% higher odds of screening (adjusted odds ratio 1.25 [95% CI 1.15-1.36]) than non-Latino White individuals without diabetes. In the analyses in which neighborhood-level percent Mexican population was the main independent variable, all Latinos without diabetes had higher odds of HbA1c screening compared with non-Latino White individuals, yet only those living in low percent Mexican-origin neighborhoods had increased monitoring rates (aRR 1.31 [95% CI 1.15-1.49]). CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal novel variation in health care utilization according to Latino subgroup neighborhood characteristics and could inform the delivery of diabetes care for a growing and increasingly diverse Latino patient population. Clinicians and researchers whose work focuses on diabetes care should take steps to improve equity in diabetes and prevent inequity in treatment.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Acute Care Use for Pediatric Asthma.

PURPOSE: Previous work has shown that asthma-related emergency department (ED) use is greatest among Black and Latine populations, but it is unknown whether health care use for exacerbations differs across settings (outpatient, ED, inpatient) and correlates with use of routine outpatient services. We aimed to measure disparities by race, ethnicity, and language in pediatric acute asthma care using data from US primary care community health centers. METHODS: In an observational study using electronic health records from community health centers in 18 states, we compared non-Hispanic Black, English-preferring Latine, Spanish-preferring Latine, and non-Hispanic White children aged 3 to 17 years on visits for clinic-coded asthma exacerbations (2012-2018). We further evaluated asthma-related ED use and inpatient admissions in a subsample of Oregon-Medicaid recipients. Covariate-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and rate ratios (RRs) were derived using logistic or negative binomial regression analysis with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Among 41,276 children with asthma, Spanish-preferring Latine children had higher odds of clinic visits for asthma exacerbation than non-Hispanic White peers (OR = 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18). Among the subsample of 6,555 children insured under Oregon-Medicaid, non-Hispanic Black children had higher odds and rates of asthma-related ED use than non-Hispanic White peers (OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.04-1.89 and RR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.04, respectively). We observed no differences between groups in asthma-related inpatient admissions. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to show that patterns of clinic and ED acute-care use differ for non-Hispanic Black and Spanish-preferring Latine children when compared with non-Hispanic White peers. Non-Hispanic Black children had lower use of clinics, whereas Spanish-preferring Latine children had higher use, including for acute exacerbations. These patterns of clinic use were accompanied by higher ED use among Black children. Ensuring adequate care in clinics may be important in mitigating disparities in asthma outcomes.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

Disparities in HbA1c testing between aging US Latino and non-Latino white primary care patients.

US Latinos disproportionately face diabetes-related disparities compared to non-Latino Whites. A number of barriers, including linguistic and cultural discordance, have been consistently linked to these disparities. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) testing is used to assess glycemic control among individuals living with diabetes. This study aimed to compare HbA1c levels and corresponding testing rates among non-Latino Whites and Latinos with both English and Spanish preference from a national cohort of primary care patients within community health centers. We analyzed electronic health records from patients who turned 50 years of age (n = 66,921) and were diagnosed with diabetes during or prior to the study period. They also must have been under observation for at least one year from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017. We calculated the rates of HbA1c tests each person received over the number of years observed and used covariate-adjusted negative binomial regression to estimate incidence rate ratios for Spanish preferring Latinos and English preferring Latinos compared to non-Latino Whites. Spanish preferring Latinos (rate ratio = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.16-1.30), regardless of HbA1c level, had higher testing rates than non-Latino Whites and English preferring Latinos. English preferring Latinos with controlled HbA1c levels had higher rates of HbA1c testing compared to non-Latino whites. Overall, the Latinos with Spanish preference maintained higher HbA1c testing rates and had disproportionately higher rates of uncontrolled HbA1c levels compared to non-Latino whites. Future efforts should focus on understanding effective approaches to increasing engagement among Spanish preferring Latinos and addressing organizational-level barriers, given HbA1c disparities.

Latino-white disparities in ICD-coded asthma diagnosis among US children.

INTRODUCTION: It is uncertain if disparities in asthma diagnosis between Latino and non-Hispanic white children stem from differences in diagnosis over time among children presenting with similar clinical scenarios suggestive of asthma. METHODS: We evaluated the odds of International Classification of Disease (ICD)-coded asthma diagnosis in Latino (English and Spanish preferring) and non-Hispanic white children, overall (N = 524,456) and among those presenting with possible asthma indicators (N = 85,516) over a 13-year period, using electronic health record data from a multi-state network of community health centers. RESULTS: Among those with possible asthma indicators, Spanish-preferring Latinos had lower adjusted odds of ICD-coded asthma diagnosis compared to non-Hispanic whites (OR = 0.87, 95%CI = 0.77-0.99); English-preferring Latinos did not differ from non-Hispanic whites. Differences in ICD-coded diagnosis between ethnicity/language groups varied by presenting symptom. CONCLUSIONS: Spanish-preferring Latino children may be less-likely to have ICD-coded asthma documented in the EHR when presenting with certain clinical indicators suggestive of asthma. Clinicians should be cognizant of the need for the follow-up of these indicators in Spanish-preferring Latino children.

Asthma Ambulatory Care Quality in Foreign-Born Latino Children in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Foreign-born Latino children in the United States (US) have poor asthma outcomes, but the role of routine care utilization in these outcomes is unclear. Our objective was to compare select ambulatory care utilization measures for asthma between foreign-born Latino, US-born Latino, and non-Hispanic white children. METHODS: Using a multistate network of clinics with a linked electronic health record, we compared the International Classification of Disease (ICD)-coded asthma diagnosis among those with respiratory symptoms, electronic health records documentation of diagnosis, prescriptions, and influenza vaccination of foreign-born and US-born Latino children, and non-Hispanic white children over a 10+ year study period. We also examined outcomes by country of birth in children from Mexico, Cuba, and Guatemala. RESULTS: Among our study population (n = 155,902), 134,570 were non-Hispanic white, 19,143 were US-born Latino, and 2189 were foreign-born Latino. Among those with suspicious respiratory symptoms, there was no difference between these groups in the predicted probability of an ICD-coded asthma diagnosis. US-born Latino children with asthma were less likely to have asthma documented on their problem list, more likely to have an albuterol prescription, and less likely to have an inhaled steroid prescribed. All Latino children had higher rates of influenza vaccination than non-Hispanic white children. CONCLUSIONS: In a national network, there were few disparities between Latino (US- and foreign-born) children and non-Hispanic white comparators in many common asthma care services, except some measures in US-born Latino children. Providers should understand that their US-born Latino children may be at elevated risk for not receiving adequate asthma care.

Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening in Latinos and Non-Hispanic Whites.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Latinos in the U.S., but it is unclear, from previous research, whether Latinos have differing rates of colorectal cancer screening methods from those of non-Hispanic Whites. METHODS: This study used electronic health records from 686 community health centers across 21 states in the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Records from English-preferring Latinos, Spanish-preferring Latinos, and non-Hispanic Whites aged 50-75 years were included. A total of 5 outcomes were compared between 2012 and 2017 to provide a comprehensive view of colorectal cancer screening: (1) any colorectal cancer screening, (2) stool-based screening, (3) annual rates of stool testing, (4) any referral for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and (5) endoscopy referral among patients with a positive stool-based screening. RESULTS: In this study (N=204,243), Spanish-preferring Latinos had higher odds of any colorectal cancer screening (OR=1.44, 95% CI=1.23, 1.68) and stool-based testing (OR=1.82, 95% CI=1.55, 2.13) than non-Hispanic Whites. English- and Spanish-preferring Latinos had lower odds of having ever had a referral for endoscopy in the study period than non-Hispanic Whites (English: OR=0.23, 95% CI=0.15, 0.34; Spanish: OR=0.55, 95% CI=0.40, 0.74), even with a positive stool-based screening (English: OR=0.14, 95% CI=0.06, 0.33; Spanish: OR=0.33, 95% CI=0.19, 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: In a multistate network of community health centers, Latino patients aged >50 years were more likely to receive stool-based screening tests for colorectal cancer than non-Hispanic Whites but were less likely to receive endoscopy referrals than non-Hispanic Whites, even when experiencing a positive stool-based screening test. Initiatives to improve Latino colorectal cancer outcomes should encourage indicated referrals for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Role of social deprivation on asthma care quality among a cohort of children in US community health centres.

OBJECTIVE: Social deprivation is associated with worse asthma outcomes. The Social Deprivation Index is a composite measure of social determinants of health used to identify neighbourhood-level disadvantage in healthcare. Our objective was to determine if higher neighbourhood-level social deprivation is associated with documented asthma care quality measures among children treated at community health centres (CHCs). METHODS SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, OUTCOME MEASURES: We used data from CHCs in 15 states in the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network (ADVANCE). The sample included 34 266 children with asthma from 2008 to 2017, aged 3-17 living in neighbourhoods with differing levels of social deprivation measured using quartiles of the Social Deprivation Index score. We conducted logistic regression to examine the odds of problem list documentation of asthma and asthma severity, and negative binomial regression for rates of albuterol, inhaled steroid and oral steroid prescription adjusted for patient-level covariates. RESULTS: Children from the most deprived neighbourhoods had increased rates of albuterol (rate ratio (RR)=1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32) compared with those in the least deprived neighbourhoods, while the point estimate for inhaled steroids was higher, but fell just short of significance at the alpha=0.05 level (RR=1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.34). We did not observe community-level differences in problem list documentation of asthma or asthma severity. CONCLUSIONS: Higher neighbourhood-level social deprivation was associated with more albuterol and inhaled steroid prescriptions among children with asthma, while problem list documentation of asthma and asthma severity varied little across neighbourhoods with differing deprivation scores. While the homogeneity of the CHC safety net setting studied may mitigate variation in diagnosis and documentation of asthma, enhanced clinician awareness of differences in community risk could help target paediatric patients at risk of lower quality asthma care.

New hypertension and diabetes diagnoses following the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion's impact on new hypertension and diabetes diagnoses in community health centres (CHCs). DESIGN: Rates of new hypertension and diabetes diagnoses were computed using generalised estimating equation Poisson models and we tested the difference-in-difference (DID) pre-ACA versus post-ACA in states that expanded Medicaid compared with those that did not. SETTING: We used electronic health record data (pre-ACA: 1 January 2012-31 December 2013-post-ACA: 1 January 2014-31 December 2016) from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network clinical data network. We included clinics with ≥50 patients contributing to person-time-at risk in each study year. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 19-64 with ≥1 ambulatory visit in the study period were included. We then excluded patients who were pregnant during the study period (N=127 530). For the hypertension outcome, we excluded individuals with a diagnosis of hypertension prior to the start of the study period, those who had a hypertension diagnosis on their first visit to a clinic or their first visit after 3 years without a visit, and those who had a diagnosis more than 3 years after their last visit (pre-ACA non-expansion N=130 973; expansion N=193 198; post-ACA non-expansion N=186 341; expansion N=251 015). For the diabetes analysis, we excluded patients with a diabetes diagnosis prior to study start, on their first visit or first visit after inactive patient status, and diagnosis while not an active patient (pre-ACA non-expansion N=145 435; expansion N=198 558; post-ACA non-expansion N=215 039; expansion N=264 644). RESULTS: In non-expansion states, adjusted hypertension diagnosis rates saw a relative decrease of 6%, while in expansion states, the adjusted rates saw a relative increase of 7% (DID 1.14, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.18). For diabetes diagnosis, adjusted rates in non-expansion states experienced a significant relative increase of 28% and in expansion states the relative increase was 25%; yet these differences were not significant pre-ACA to post-ACA comparing expansion and non-expansion states (DID 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05). CONCLUSION: There was a differential impact of Medicaid expansion for hypertension and diabetes diagnoses. Moderate increases were found in diabetes diagnosis rates among all patients served by CHCs post-ACA (both in expansion and non-expansion states). These increases suggest that ACA-related opportunities to gain health insurance (such as marketplaces and the Medicaid expansion) may have facilitated access to diagnostic tests for this population. The study found a small change in hypertension diagnosis rates from pre-ACA to post-ACA (a decrease in non-expansion and an increase in expansion states). Despite the significant difference between expansion and non-expansion states, the small change from pre-ACA to post-ACA suggests that the diagnosis of hypertension is likely documented for patients, regardless of health insurance availability. Future studies are needed to understand the impact of the ACA on hypertension and diabetes treatment and control.

Asthma Care Quality, Language, and Ethnicity in a Multi-State Network of Low-Income Children.

INTRODUCTION: Prior research has documented disparities in asthma outcomes between Latino children and non-Hispanic whites, but little research directly examines the care provided to Latino children over time in clinical settings. METHODS: We utilized an electronic health record-based dataset to study basic asthma care utilization (timely diagnosis documentation and medication prescription) between Latino (Spanish preferring and English preferring) and Non-Hispanic white children over a 13-year study period. RESULTS: In our study population (n = 37,614), Latino children were more likely to have Medicaid, be low income, and be obese than non-Hispanic white children. Latinos (Spanish preferring and English preferring) had lower odds than non-Hispanic whites of having their asthma recorded on their problem list on the first day the diagnosis was noted (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.89 Spanish preferring; OR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.99 English preferring). Spanish-preferring Latinos had higher odds of ever receiving a prescription for albuterol (OR = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.52), inhaled corticosteroids (OR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.09), or oral steroids (OR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.04) than non-Hispanic whites. Among those with any prescription, Spanish-preferring Latinos had higher rates of albuterol prescriptions compared with non-Hispanic whites (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] = 1.0; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.13). CONCLUSIONS: In a multi-state network of clinics, Latino children were less likely to have their asthma entered on their problem list the first day it was noted than non-Hispanic white children, but otherwise did not receive inferior care to non-Hispanic white children in other measures. Further research can examine other parts of the asthma care continuum to better understand asthma disparities.

Smoking Assessment and Current Smoking Status Among Adolescents in Primary Care Settings.

INTRODUCTION: Initiating tobacco use in adolescence increases the risk of nicotine dependence and continued use into adulthood. Primary care visits provide opportunities for the assessment and treatment of tobacco use; however, little is known about prevalence and correlates of assessing smoking status and current use among adolescents in these settings. AIMS AND METHODS: Using electronic health record data from the OCHIN network, we identified adolescents with greater than or equal to one primary care visit to a study clinic (n = 366 clinics from 15 US states) during January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017. We estimated odds ratios of smoking assessment and current smoking status by patient covariates. RESULTS: Of 140 887 patients, 87.4% were assessed for smoking. Being Latino or Black (adjusted odds ratio = 1.22, 95% confidence interval: 1.13-1.32; adjusted odds ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-1.29, respectively, vs. non-Hispanic White), publicly insured, having more visits, and having an asthma diagnosis or other respiratory symptoms were associated with higher odds of assessment. Odds were lower if the patient was male and uninsured. Of those assessed, 1.6% identified as current smokers. Being older, having more visits, an asthma diagnosis, other respiratory symptoms, and lower household income was associated with higher odds of being a current smoker. Latinos and Blacks had lower odds than non-Hispanic Whites. CONCLUSIONS: Although some commonly reported tobacco-related disparities were not present, smoking assessment and current smoking status differed significantly by most patient demographics. Implementation of adolescent tobacco assessment protocols and the development of interventions to target subpopulations of adolescents with higher rates of smoking could mitigate disparate rates of assessment and smoking, respectively. IMPLICATIONS: Clinical guidelines recommend screening adolescents for tobacco use in primary care settings. We found that most adolescents seen in US safety-net primary care clinics were assessed for smoking. We also found that smoking assessment and current smoking status differed significantly by most patient demographics. Implementing tobacco assessment protocols specific to adolescents could mitigate disparate rates of assessment and ensure accurate documentation of all forms of tobacco use, given the evolution of alternative tobacco products and poly use among adolescents. Interventions to target subpopulations of adolescents with higher smoking rates are needed to prevent the negative health effects of continued smoking.

Tobacco Cessation in Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion States Versus Non-expansion States.

INTRODUCTION: Community health centers (CHCs) care for vulnerable patients who use tobacco at higher than national rates. States that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided insurance coverage to tobacco users not previously Medicaid-eligible, thereby potentially increasing their odds of receiving cessation assistance. We examined if tobacco users in Medicaid expansion states had increased quit rates, cessation medications ordered, and greater health care utilization compared to patients in non-expansion states. METHODS: Using electronic health record (EHR) data from 219 CHCs in 10 states that expanded Medicaid as of January 1, 2014, we identified patients aged 19-64 with tobacco use status documented in the EHR within 6 months prior to ACA Medicaid expansion and ≥1 visit with tobacco use status assessed within 24 months post-expansion (January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015). We propensity score matched these patients to tobacco users from 108 CHCs in six non-expansion states (n = 27 670 matched pairs; 55 340 patients). Using a retrospective observational cohort study design, we compared odds of having a quit status, cessation medication ordered, and ≥6 visits within the post-expansion period among patients in expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: Patients in expansion states had increased adjusted odds of quitting (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28-1.43), having a medication ordered (aOR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.44-1.62), and having ≥6 follow-up visits (aOR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.28-1.41) compared to patients from non-expansion states. CONCLUSIONS: Increased access to insurance via the ACA Medicaid expansion likely led to increased quit rates within this vulnerable population. IMPLICATIONS: CHCs care for vulnerable patients at higher risk of tobacco use than the general population. Medicaid expansion via the ACA provided insurance coverage to a large number of tobacco users not previously Medicaid-eligible. We found that expanded insurance coverage was associated with increased cessation assistance and higher odds of tobacco cessation. Continued provision of insurance coverage could lead to increased quit rates among high-risk populations, resulting in improvements in population health outcomes and reduced total health care costs.