Primary Care and Community-Based Partnerships to Enhance HPV Vaccine Delivery.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: With growing vaccination misinformation and mistrust, strategies to improve vaccination communication across community-based settings are needed. METHODS: The Rural Adolescent Vaccine Enterprise (RAVE), a 5-year (2018-2022) stepped-wedge cluster randomized study, tested a clinic-based practice facilitation intervention designed to improve HPV vaccination. An exploratory aim sought to explore the use of partnerships between primary care clinics and a community partner of their choosing, to implement a social marketing campaign related to HPV immunization. We assessed perceptions about the value and success of the partnership, and barriers and facilitators to its implementation using a 29-item community partner survey, key informant interviews, and field notes from practice facilitators. RESULTS: Of the initial 45 clinics participating in RAVE, 9 were unable to either start or complete the study, and 36 participants (80.0%) were actively engaged. Of these, 16/36 clinics (44.4%) reported establishing successful partnerships, 10 reported attempting to develop partnerships (27.8%), and another 10 reported not developing a partnership (27.8%), which were often caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common partnership was with public health departments at 27.3%. Other partnerships involved libraries, school districts, and local businesses. More than half (63.7%) reported that creating messages regarding getting HPV vaccination was moderately to very challenging. Just under half reported (45.5%) that messaging was hard because of a lack of understanding about the seriousness of diseases caused by HPV, parents being against vaccines because of safety concerns, and religious values that result in a lack of openness to HPV vaccines. Community partners' health priorities changed as a result of RAVE, with 80% prioritizing childhood immunizations as a result of the RAVE partnership. CONCLUSIONS: Community groups want to partner with primary care organizations to serve their patients and populations. More research is needed on how best to bring these groups together.

Provision of colonoscopy in rural settings: A qualitative assessment of provider context, barriers, facilitators, and capacity.

PURPOSE: Colonoscopy can prevent morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) and is the most commonly used screening method in the United States. Barriers to colonoscopy at multiple levels can contribute to disparities. Yet, in rural settings, little is known about who delivers colonoscopy and facilitators and barriers to colonoscopy access through screening completion. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with providers in rural Oregon who worked in endoscopy centers or primary care clinics. Semistructured interviews, conducted in July and August, 2021, focused on clinician experiences providing colonoscopy to rural Medicaid patients, including workflows, barriers, and access. We used thematic analysis, through immersion crystallization, to analyze interview transcripts and develop emergent themes. FINDINGS: We interviewed 19 providers. We found two categories of colonoscopy providers: primary care providers (PCPs) doing colonoscopy on their own patients (n = 9; 47%) and general surgeons providing colonoscopy to patients referred to their services (n = 10; 53%). Providers described barriers to colonoscopy at the provider, community, and patient levels and suggested patient supports could help overcome them. Providers found current colonoscopy capacity sufficient, but noted PCPs trained to perform colonoscopy would be key to continued accessibility. Finally, providers shared concerns about the shrinking number of PCP endoscopists, especially with anticipated increased screening demand related to the CRC screening guideline shift. CONCLUSIONS: These themes reflect opportunities to address multilevel barriers to improve access, colonoscopy capacity, and patient education approaches. Our results highlight that PCPs are an essential part of the workforce that provides colonoscopy in rural areas.

"It's Like Finding Your Way Through the Labyrinth": a Qualitative Study of Veterans' Experiences Accessing Healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 Veterans Choice Act and subsequent 2018 Veteran's Affairs (VA) Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act (MISSION Act) are legislation which clarified Veteran access to healthcare provided by non-VA clinicians (community care). These policies are of particular importance to Veterans living in rural areas, who tend to live farther from VA medical facilities than urban Veterans. OBJECTIVE: To understand Veterans' experiences of the MISSION Act and how it impacted their access to primary care to inform future interventions with a focus on reaching rural Veterans. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive design. PARTICIPANTS: United States (US) Veterans in Northwestern states engaged in VA and/or community care. APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of Veterans between August 2020 and September 2021. Interview domains focused on barriers and facilitators of healthcare access. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 28 Veterans; 52% utilized community care as their primary source of care and 36% were from rural or frontier areas. Three main themes emerged: (1) Veterans described their healthcare experiences as positive but also frustrating (billing and prior authorization were noted as top frustrations); (2) Veterans with medical complexities, living far from healthcare services, and/or seeking women's healthcare services experienced additional frustration due to increased touch points with VA systems and processes; and (3) financial resources and/or knowledge of the VA system insulated Veterans from frustration with healthcare navigation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite provisions in the MISSION Act, Veteran participants described persistent barriers to healthcare access. Patient characteristics that required increased interaction with VA processes exacerbated these barriers, while financial resources and VA system knowledge mitigated them. Interventions to improve care coordination or address access barriers across VA and community care settings could improve access and reduce health inequities for Veterans-especially those with medical complexities, those living far from healthcare services, or those seeking women's healthcare.

Impact of the COVID-19 vaccination mandate on the primary care workforce and differences between rural and urban settings to inform future policy decision-making.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the impact of mandated vaccination policies on the primary care clinic workforce in the United States or differences between rural and urban settings, especially for COVID-19. With the continued pandemic and an anticipated increase in novel disease outbreaks and emerging vaccines, healthcare systems need additional information on how vaccine mandates impact the healthcare workforce to aid in future decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Oregon primary care clinic staff between October 28, 2021- November 18, 2021, following implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for healthcare personnel. The survey consisted of 19 questions that assessed the clinic-level impacts of the vaccination mandate. Outcomes included job loss among staff, receipt of an approved vaccination waiver, new vaccination among staff, and the perceived significance of the policy on clinic staffing. We used univariable descriptive statistics to compare outcomes between rural and urban clinics. The survey also included three open-ended questions that were analyzed using a template analysis approach. RESULTS: Staff from 80 clinics across 28 counties completed surveys, representing 38 rural and 42 urban clinics. Clinics reported job loss (46%), use of vaccination waivers (51%), and newly vaccinated staff (60%). Significantly more rural clinics (compared to urban) utilized medical and/or religious vaccination waivers (71% vs 33%, p = 0.04) and reported significant impact on clinic staffing (45% vs 21%, p = 0.048). There was also a non-significant trend toward more job loss for rural compared to urban clinics (53% vs. 41%, p = 0.547). Qualitative analysis highlighted a decline in clinic morale, small but meaningful detriments to patient care, and mixed opinions of the vaccination mandate. CONCLUSIONS: Oregon's COVID-19 vaccination mandate increased healthcare personnel vaccination rates, yet amplified staffing challenges with disproportionate impacts in rural areas. Staffing impacts in primary care clinics were greater than reported previously in hospital settings and with other vaccination mandates. Mitigating primary care staffing impacts, particularly in rural areas, will be critical in response to the continued pandemic and novel viruses in the future.

Jumping Through Hoops: Community Care Clinician and Staff Experiences Providing Primary Care to Rural Veterans.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 VA Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act, or MISSION Act, aimed to improve rural veteran access to care by expanding coverage for services in the community. Increased access to clinicians outside the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) could benefit rural veterans, who often face obstacles obtaining VA care. This solution, however, relies on clinics willing to navigate VA administrative processes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experiences rural, non-VA clinicians and staff have while providing care to rural veterans and inform challenges and opportunities for high-quality, equitable care access and delivery. DESIGN: Phenomenological qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Non-VA-affiliated primary care clinicians and staff in the Pacific Northwest. APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of eligible clinicians and staff between May and August 2020; data analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 13 clinicians and staff and identified four themes and multiple challenges related to providing care for rural veterans: (1) Confusion, variability and delays for VA administrative processes, (2) clarifying responsibility for dual-user veteran care, (3) accessing and sharing medical records outside the VA, and (4) negotiating communication pathways between systems and clinicians. Informants reported using workarounds to combat challenges, including using trial and error to gain expertise in VA system navigation, relying on veterans to act as intermediaries to coordinate their care, and depending on individual VA employees to support provider-to-provider communication and share system knowledge. Informants expressed concerns that dual-user veterans were more likely to have duplication or gaps in services. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need to reduce the bureaucratic burden of interacting with the VA. Further work is needed to tailor structures to address challenges rural community providers experience and to identify strategies to reduce care fragmentation across VA and non-VA providers and encourage long-term commitment to care for veterans.

"It Made Me Feel like Things Are Starting to Change in Society:" A Qualitative Study to Foster Positive Patient Experiences during Phone-Based Social Needs Interventions.

Many healthcare organizations are screening patients for health-related social needs (HRSN) to improve healthcare quality and outcomes. Due to both the COVID-19 pandemic and limited time during clinical visits, much of this screening is now happening by phone. To promote healing and avoid harm, it is vital to understand patient experiences and recommendations regarding these activities. We conducted a pragmatic qualitative study with patients who had participated in a HRSN intervention. We applied maximum variation sampling, completed recruitment and interviews by phone, and carried out an inductive reflexive thematic analysis. From August to November 2021 we interviewed 34 patients, developed 6 themes, and used these themes to create a framework for generating positive patient experiences during phone-based HRSN interventions. First, we found patients were likely to have initial skepticism or reservations about the intervention. Second, we identified 4 positive intervention components regarding patient experience: transparency and respect for patient autonomy; kind demeanor; genuine intention to help; and attentiveness and responsiveness to patients' situations. Finally, we found patients could be left with feelings of appreciation or hope, regardless of whether they connected with HRSN resources. Healthcare organizations can incorporate our framework into trainings for team members carrying out phone-based HRSN interventions.