Using State Licensure Data to Assess North Carolina's Health Workforce COVID-19 Response Capacity.

BACKGROUND In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, health care decision-makers in North Carolina needed information about the available health workforce in order to conduct workforce surge planning and to anticipate concerns about professional or geographic workforce shortages.METHOD Descriptive and cartographic analyses were conducted using licensure data held by the North Carolina Health Professions Data System to assess the supply of respiratory therapists, nurses, and critical care physicians in North Carolina. Licensure data were merged with population data and numbers of intensive care unit (ICU) beds drawn from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Healthcare Cost Report Information System (HCRIS).RESULTS The pandemic highlighted how critical data infrastructure is to public health infrastructure. Respiratory therapists and acute care, emergency, and critical care nurses were diffused broadly throughout the state, with higher concentrations in urban areas. Critical care physicians were primarily based in areas with academic health centers.LIMITATIONS Data were unavailable to capture the rapid changes in supply due to clinicians reentering or exiting the workforce. County-level analyses did not reflect individual, facility-level supply, which was needed to plan organizational responses.CONCLUSIONS Health care decision-makers in North Carolina were able to access information about the supply of clinicians critical to caring for COVID-19 patients due to the state's long-standing investments in health workforce data infrastructure. Ability to respond was made easier due to strong working relationships between the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, the North Carolina Area Health Education Centers Program, the health professional licensure boards, and state government health care agencies.

Chronic Disease Among African American Families: A Systematic Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic diseases are common among African Americans, but the extent to which research has focused on addressing chronic diseases across multiple members of African American families is unclear. This systematic scoping review summarizes the characteristics of research addressing coexisting chronic conditions among African American families, including guiding theories, conditions studied, types of relationships, study outcomes, and intervention research. METHODS: The literature search was conducted in PsycInfo, PubMed, Social Work Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, CINAHL, and Family and Society Studies Worldwide to identify relevant articles published from January 2000 through September 2016. We screened the title and abstracts of 9,170 articles, followed by full-text screening of 530 articles, resulting in a final sample of 114 articles. Fifty-seven percent (n = 65) of the articles cited a guiding theory/framework, with psychological theories (eg, social cognitive theory, transtheoretical model) being most prominent. The most common conditions studied in families were depression (70.2%), anxiety (23.7%), and diabetes (22.8%), with most articles focusing on a combination of physical and mental health conditions (47.4%). RESULTS: In the 114 studies in this review, adult family members were primarily the index person (71.1%, n = 81). The index condition, when identified (79.8%, n = 91), was more likely to be a physical health condition (46.5%, n = 53) than a mental health condition (29.8%, n = 34). Among 343 family relationships examined, immediate family relationships were overwhelmingly represented (85.4%, n = 293); however, extended family (12.0%, n = 41) and fictive kin (0.6%, n = 2) were included. Most (57.0%, n = 65) studies focused on a single category of outcomes, such as physical health (eg, obesity, glycemic control), mental health (eg, depression, anxiety, distress), psychosocial outcomes (eg, social support, caregiver burden), or health behaviors (eg, medication adherence, disease management, health care utilization); however, 43.0% (n = 49) of studies focused on outcomes across multiple categories. Sixteen intervention articles (14.0%) were identified, with depression the most common condition of interest. CONCLUSION: Recognizing the multiple, simultaneous health issues facing families through a lens of family comorbidity and family multimorbidity may more accurately mirror the lived experiences of many African American families and better elucidate intervention opportunities than previous approaches.