Costs and Health Care Utilization Analysis of Medical Group Visits for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in Community Health Centers.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the economic impact of group visits (GVs) in adults with uncontrolled diabetes in community health centers (CHCs) in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective controlled trial, we implemented 6 monthly GV sessions in 5 CHCs and compared intervention patients (n=49) to control patients (n=72) receiving usual care within the same CHCs. We conducted patient chart reviews to obtain health care utilization data for the prior 6 months at baseline, 6 months (during the GV implementation), and 12 months (after the implementation). We also collected monthly logs of CHC expenses and staff time spent on activities related to GVs. Per-patient total costs included CHCs' expenses and costs associated with staff time and patients' health care use. For group comparison, we used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the bootstrapping method that was to bootstrap generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: The GV group had fewer 6-month hospitalizations (mean: GV: 0.06 vs. control: 0.24, rate: 6.1% vs. 19.4%) ( P ≤ 0.04) and similar emergency department visits at 12 months than the control group. Implementing GV incurred $1770 per-patient. The intervention cost $1597 more than the control at 6 months ($3021 vs. $1424) but saved $1855 at 12 months ($857 vs. $2712) ( P =0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The diabetes GV care model reduced hospitalizations and had cost savings at 12 months, while it improved patients' diabetes-related quality of life and glucose control. Future studies should assess its lifetime cost-effectiveness through a randomized controlled trial.

Impact of diabetes group visits on patient clinical and self-reported outcomes in community health centers.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes group visits (GVs) are a promising way to deliver high quality care but have been understudied in community health centers (CHCs), across multiple sites, or with a focus on patient-centered outcomes. METHODS: We trained staff and healthcare providers from six CHCs across five Midwestern states to implement a 6-month GV program at their sites. We assessed the impact of diabetes GVs on patient clinical and self-reported outcomes and processes of care compared to patients receiving usual care at these sites during the same period using a prospective controlled study design. RESULTS: CHCs enrolled 51 adult patients with diabetes with glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) ≥ 8% for the GV intervention and conducted chart review of 72 patients receiving usual care. We analyzed A1C at baseline, 6, and 12 months, low-density lipoproteins (LDL), blood pressure, and patient-reported outcomes. GV patients had a larger decrease in A1C from baseline to 6 months (-1.04%, 95% CI: -1.64, -0.44) and 12 months (-1.76, 95% CI: -2.44, -1.07) compared to usual care; there was no change in blood pressure or LDL. GV patients had higher odds of receiving a flu vaccination, foot exam, eye exam, and lipid panel in the past year compared to usual care but not a dental exam, urine microalbumin test, or blood pressure check. For GV patients, diabetes distress decreased, diabetes-related quality of life improved, and self-reported frequency of healthy eating and checking blood sugar increased from baseline to 6 months, but there was no change in exercise or medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: A diabetes GV intervention improved blood glucose levels, self-care behaviors, diabetes distress, and processes of care among adults with elevated A1Cs compared to patients receiving usual care. Future studies are needed to assess the sustainability of clinical improvements and costs of the GV model in CHCs.

Assessing the effectiveness of a diabetes group visit training for health center staff: a pilot study of five Midwestern community health centers.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes group visits are shared appointments that include diabetes education in a group setting and individual visits with a medical provider. An 18-month pilot study was designed to evaluate organizational capacity and staff preparedness in implementing and sustaining diabetes group visits. RESULTS: Data were collected and analyzed from pre-post assessments and key informant interviews with community health center (CHC) staff (N = 26) from teams across five Midwestern states. Overall, participants demonstrated high baseline knowledge and awareness about diabetes group visit implementation. Changes in attitudes and practices did occur pertaining to familiarity with billing and increased awareness about potential barriers to diabetes group visit implementation. Key assets to diabetes group visit implementation were access to pre-designed resources and materials, a highly motivated team, and supportive leadership. Key obstacles were socioeconomic challenges experienced by patients, constraints on staff time dedicated to group visit implementation, and staff turnover. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the study provide a framework for implementation of diabetes group visit trainings for CHC staff. Future research is needed to assess the training program in a larger sample of CHCs.

From strategy to action: how top managers' support increases middle managers' commitment to innovation implementation in health care organizations.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that top managers' support influences middle managers' commitment to innovation implementation. What remains unclear is how top managers' support influences middle managers' commitment. Results may be used to improve dismal rates of innovation implementation. METHODS: We used a mixed-method sequential design. We surveyed (n = 120) and interviewed (n = 16) middle managers implementing an innovation intended to reduce health disparities in 120 U.S. health centers to assess whether top managers' support directly influences middle managers' commitment; by allocating implementation policies and practices; or by moderating the influence of implementation policies and practices on middle managers' commitment. For quantitative analyses, multivariable regression assessed direct and moderated effects; a mediation model assessed mediating effects. We used template analysis to assess qualitative data. FINDINGS: We found support for each hypothesized relationship: Results suggest that top managers increase middle managers' commitment by directly conveying to middle managers that innovation implementation is an organizational priority (ß = 0.37, p = .09); allocating implementation policies and practices including performance reviews, human resources, training, and funding (bootstrapped estimate for performance reviews = 0.09; 95% confidence interval [0.03, 0.17]); and encouraging middle managers to leverage performance reviews and human resources to achieve innovation implementation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Top managers can demonstrate their support directly by conveying to middle managers that an initiative is an organizational priority, allocating implementation policies and practices such as human resources and funding to facilitate innovation implementation, and convincing middle managers that innovation implementation is possible using available implementation policies and practices. Middle managers may maximize the influence of top managers' support on their commitment by communicating with top managers about what kind of support would be most effective in increasing their commitment to innovation implementation.

Effects of COVID on Mandated Child Abuse Reporting Among Nurses: The Mediating Role of Compassion Fatigue.

Because COVID triggered elevated rates of child abuse, but diminished rates of child abuse reporting, we explored predictors of nurses' attitudes toward reporting suspected child abuse during the COVID pandemic. In particular, we expected that compassion fatigue and compassion satisfaction would mediate the effects of COVID-related stressors (i.e., exposure to COVID patient death and suffering; COVID-related family income loss; frequent direct care of COVID patients; and parental burnout) on nurses' negative attitudes toward reporting suspected child abuse. Employing chain-referral sampling, we recruited a sample of 244 registered nurses (83% White; 87% women). Supporting hypotheses, compassion fatigue mediated the effects of job-related COVID stressors (exposure to COVID patient death and suffering; COVID-related family income loss; and frequent direct care of COVID patients) on nurses' negative attitudes toward reporting suspected child abuse. In addition, among nurses who were also parents, nurses' self-reported parental burnout mediated the relation between compassion fatigue and negative attitudes toward reporting suspected child abuse. In addition, compassion satisfaction mediated the effect of nurses' parental burnout on nurses' negative attitudes toward reporting suspected child abuse.

Factors related to recruitment and retention of patients into diabetes group visits in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine factors related to recruitment of eligible patients and retention of enrolled patients in diabetes group visits (GVs). METHOD: As part of a cluster randomized trial, 272 eligible patients were contacted and 75 patients were eventually enrolled in GVs at six community health centers (CHC). Fisher's exact tests and χ2 tests were used to compare enrolled and nonenrolled patients by patient recruitment method, gender and preferred language. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate characteristics associated with GV attendance such as diabetes self-empowerment and diabetes-associated distress. Content analysis was used to analyse patients' open-ended survey responses, and template analysis was used to analyse CHC staff interviews. RESULTS: In terms of recruitment and enrollment analysis, patients who received in-person contact only and both phone and in-person contact comprised a greater fraction of the enrolled than unenrolled group, while those who received phone only and both phone and mail comprised a smaller fraction of the enrolled than unenrolled group (p = 0.004). In terms of retention analysis, 70 of the 75 enrolled patients attended at least one GV (93%). The average number of GVs was 3.2 out of 6 visits. Higher GV attendance was associated with lower baseline diabetes empowerment (p = 0.03). Patients' most common self-reported motivating factors to attend GVs were to learn more about diabetes, gain improved blood glucose control and find support from peers. CONCLUSION: In-person recruitment for GVs at CHCs was more effective than recruitment by telephone/mail. Patients who felt less empowered to manage their diabetes were most motivated to attend GVs. These findings could help clinicians implement targeted recruitment of patient populations who are more likely to attend diabetes GVs and tailor self-management education interventions to their patient populations, particularly for underserved patients who face disparate clinical outcomes.

Evaluating Effects of Virtual Diabetes Group Visits in Community Health Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Diabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the US. Diabetes group visits (GVs), which include group education and individual medical visits have been shown to improve clinical outcomes. However, few studies have evaluated virtual GVs. We conducted a single-arm pilot study to test the impact of virtual diabetes GVs in Midwestern community health centers (CHCs). Adult patients with diabetes participated in monthly virtual GVs for 6 months. Surveys and chart abstraction were used to assess patient-reported and clinical outcomes. Five CHCs implemented virtual GVs with 34 patients attending at least one session. Virtual GVs show promise as evidenced by these findings: (1) Patients had a nonsignificant decrease in A1C. (2) In the subgroup of patients with baseline A1C ≥ 9%, there was a significant decrease in A1C. (3) Patients had significant increases in diabetes knowledge and support as well as a decrease in diabetes distress. Future studies with a larger sample size and a control comparison group are needed to assess the impact of virtual GVs on patient outcomes.

COVID-19 patient care predicts nurses' parental burnout and child abuse: Mediating effects of compassion fatigue.

BACKGROUND: Nurses who are also parents may be at risk not only for professional compassion fatigue, but also parental burnout - a reliable and valid predictor of child abuse and neglect. In support, recent research reveals that parents' COVID-19 related stressors predicted elevated potential for child abuse (Katz and Fallon, 2021). OBJECTIVE: We explored the harmful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses' parental burnout, child abuse, and child neglect, as mediated by compassion fatigue (i.e., a combination of job burnout and secondary traumatic stress). PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Participants were 244 nurses (M age = 32.4; 87% female) who were parents of young children (age 12 or under) recruited via chain referral sampling. METHODS: Participants completed an anonymous survey assessing the extent to which they care for COVID-19 patients, are exposed to patients suffering and dying from COVID-19, and have lost family income due to COVID-19. We also measured their compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction, substance abuse, spouse conflict, parental burnout, child abuse, and child neglect. RESULTS: As hypothesized, direct care of COVID-19 patients, exposure to patient death and suffering due to COVID-19, and family income loss due to COVID-19 predicted greater compassion fatigue, which in turn, predicted greater parental burnout, child abuse, child neglect, spouse conflict, and substance abuse, (IEs ≥ 0.06, all ps < 0.05). Also, as compassion satisfaction increased, parental burnout, child abuse, child neglect, spouse conflict, and substance abuse decreased, rs ≥ -0.203, ps < 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Theoretical implications and practical implications for medical practice and child abuse prevention are discussed.

Integration of primary care and behavioral health services in midwestern community health centers: A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Integrating behavioral health (BH) and primary care is an important strategy to improve health behaviors, mental health, and substance misuse, particularly at community health centers (CHCs) where disease burden is high and access to mental health services is low. Components of different integrated BH models are often combined in practice. It is unknown which components distinguish developing versus established integrated BH programs. METHOD: A survey was mailed to 128 CHCs in 10 Midwestern states in 2016. Generalized estimating equation models were used to assess associations between program characteristics and stage of integration implementation (precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, or maintenance). Content analysis of open-ended responses identified integration barriers. RESULTS: Response rate was 60% (N = 77). Most CHCs had colocated BH and primary care services, warm hand-offs from primary care to BH clinicians, shared scheduling and electronic health record (EHR) systems, and depression and substance use disorder screening. Thirty-two CHCs (42%) indicated they had completed integration and were focused on quality improvement (maintenance). Being in the maintenance stage was associated with having a psychologist on staff (odds ratio [OR] = 7.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] [2.76, 18.55]), a system for tracking referrals (OR = 3.42, 95% CI [1.03, 11.36]), a registry (OR = 2.71, 95% CI [1.86, 3.94]), PCMH designation (OR = 2.82, 95% CI [1.48, 5.37]), and a lower proportion of Black/African American patients (OR = .82, 95% CI [.75, .89]). The most common barriers to integration were difficulty recruiting and retaining BH clinicians and inadequate reimbursement. DISCUSSION: CHCs have implemented many foundational components of integrated BH. Future work should address barriers to integration and racial disparities in access to integrated BH. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Adapting in-person diabetes group visits to a virtual setting across federally qualified health centers.

Diabetes group visits (GVs) have been shown to improve glycemic control, enrich patient self-care, and decrease healthcare utilization among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While telehealth has become routine, virtual GVs remain understudied, especially in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). We conducted a 5-year cluster randomized trial with a waitlist control group to test the impact of diabetes GVs on patients' outcomes in Midwestern FQHCs. Due to COVID-19, the 6 waitlisted FQHCs adapted to virtual GVs. FQHC staff were provided training and support to implement virtual GVs. The GV intervention included 6 monthly 1-1.5-h long education sessions and appointments with a primary care provider. We measured staff perspectives and satisfaction via GV session logs, monthly webinars, and staff surveys and interviews. Adaptations for implementation of virtual GV included: additional staff training, video conferencing platform use, decreased session length and group size, and adjusting study materials, activities, and provider appointments. Sites enrolled a total of 48 adults with T2DM for virtual GVs. Most FQHCs were urban and all FQHCs predominantly had patients on public insurance. Patients attended 2.1 ± 2.2 GVs across sites on average. Thirty-four patients (71%) attended one or more virtual GVs. The average GV lasted 79.4 min. Barriers to virtual GVs included patient technology issues and access, patient recruitment and enrollment, and limited staff availability. Virtual GV facilitators included providing tablets, internet access from the clinic, and technical support. Staff reported spending on average 4.9 h/week planning and implementing GVs (SD = 5.9). On average, 6 staff from each FQHC participated in GV training and 1.2 staff reported past GV experience. All staff had worked at least 1 year at their FQHC and most reported multiple years of experience caring for patients with T2DM. Staff-perceived virtual GV benefits included: empowered patients to manage their diabetes, provided patients with social support and frequent contact with providers, improved relationships with patients, increased team collaboration, and better patient engagement and care-coordination. Future studies and health centers can incorporate these findings to implement virtual diabetes GVs and promote accessible diabetes care.

Patient and Clinician Satisfaction With Diabetes Group Visits in Community Health Centers.

Diabetes group visits (GVs) have been shown to improve glycemic control and quality of care. However, little is known about the patient and clinician experience. We trained staff to conduct a 6-month GV intervention at six community health centers (CHCs) for adults with uncontrolled diabetes. Patient satisfaction was analyzed using postintervention surveys. Clinician satisfaction was analyzed through pre and posttraining surveys and 1:1 semistructured interviews. Twenty-seven staff and clinicians were trained. Fifty-one adult patients were enrolled and 90% reported high satisfaction with the program. Patients enjoyed longer visits with peer support and felt better equipped to manage barriers to diabetes control. 88% of staff reported that they enjoyed taking part in the program and noted improved team morale, professional development, and increased interdisciplinary collaboration. Perceived challenges of GVs included time investment for a new program, integration into workflow, and staff turnover. Patient and staff satisfaction was high across multiple domains. Staff noted many benefits but reported challenges with patient recruitment and retention as well as the time needed to implement GVs.

Positive and negative spillovers of the Health Disparities Collaboratives in federally qualified health centers: staff perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) interventions are usually evaluated for their intended effect; little is known about whether they generate significant positive or negative spillovers. METHODS: We mailed a 39-item self-administered survey to the 1256 staff at 135 federally qualified health centers (FQHC) implementing the Health Disparities Collaboratives (HDC), a large-scale QI collaborative intervention. We asked about the extent to which the HDC yielded improvements or detriments beyond its condition(s) of focus, particularly for non-HDC aspects of patient care and FQHC function. RESULTS: Response rate was 68.7%. The HDC was perceived to improve non-HDC patient care and general FQHC functioning more often than it was regarded as diminishing them. In all, 45% of respondents indicated that the HDC improved the quality of care for chronic conditions not being emphasized by the HDC; 5% responded that the HDC diminished that quality. Seventy-five percent stated that the HDC improved care provided to patients with multiple chronic conditions; 4% signified that the HDC diminished it. Fifty-five percent of respondents indicated that the HDC improved their FQHC's ability to move patients through their center, and 80% indicated that the HDC improved their FQHC's QI plan as a whole; 8% and 2% indicated that the HDC diminished these, respectively. DISCUSSION: On balance, the HDC was perceived to yield more positive spillovers than negative ones. This QI intervention appears to have generated effects beyond its condition of focus; QI's unintended effects should be included in evaluations to develop a better understanding of QI's net impact.

Insurance status and quality of diabetes care in community health centers.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare quality of diabetes care by insurance type in federally funded community health centers. Method. We categorized 2018 diabetes patients, randomly selected from 27 community health centers in 17 states in 2002, into 6 mutually exclusive insurance groups. We used multivariate logistic regression analyses to compare quality of diabetes care according to 6 National Committee for Quality Assurance Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set diabetes processes of care and outcome measures. RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of patients had no health insurance, 24% had Medicare only, 15% had Medicaid only, 7% had both Medicare and Medicaid, 14% had private insurance, and 7% had another insurance type. Those without insurance were the least likely to meet the quality-of-care measures; those with Medicaid had a quality of care similar to those with no insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Research is needed to identify the major mediators of differences in quality of care by insurance status among safety-net providers such as community health centers. Such research is needed for policy interventions at Medicaid benefit design and as an incentive to improve quality of care.

Development and Testing of the Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care (PSPIC) Survey.

This article discusses development and testing of the Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care Survey, a 21-item questionnaire, informed by Singer and colleagues' seven-construct framework. Questionnaires were sent to 2,936 providers and staff at 100 federally qualified health centers and other safety net clinics in 10 Midwestern U.S. states; 332 were ineligible, leaving 2,604 potential participants. Following 4 mailings, 781 (30%) responded from 97 health centers. Item analyses, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis were undertaken. Exploratory factor analysis suggests four latent factors: Teams and Care Continuity, Patient Centeredness, Coordination with External Providers, and Coordination with Community Resources. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed these factor groupings. For the total sample, Cronbach's alpha exceeded 0.7 for each latent factor. Descriptive responses to each of the 21 Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care questions appear to have potential in identifying areas that providers and staff recognize as care integration strengths, and areas that may warrant improvement.

Sustaining quality improvement in community health centers: perceptions of leaders and staff.

The Health Disparities Collaboratives are the largest national quality improvement (QI) initiatives in community health centers. This article identifies the incentives and assistance personnel believe are necessary to sustain QI. In 2004, 1006 survey respondents (response rate 67%) at 165 centers cited lack of resources, time, and staff burnout as common barriers. Release time was the most desired personal incentive. The highest funding priorities were direct patient care services (44% ranked no. 1), data entry (34%), and staff time for QI (26%). Participants also needed help with patient self-management (73%), information systems (77%), and getting providers to follow guidelines (64%).

The perceived financial impact of quality improvement efforts in community health centers.

We administered surveys to 100 chief executive officers (CEOs) of community health centers to determine their perceptions of the financial impact of the Health Disparities Collaboratives, a national quality improvement initiative. One third of the CEOs believed that the HDC had a negative financial impact on their health center, and this perception was significantly correlated with centers having a higher proportion of uninsured patients. Performance-based payment incentives may improve care but may also add new financial burdens to facilities that treat the uninsured population. As such, a provider's payer mix may need to be considered in the design of QI programs if they are to be sustainable.

The cost consequences of improving diabetes care: the community health center experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant interest in the business case for quality improvement (QI), there are few evaluations of the impact of QI programs on outpatient organizations. The financial impact of the Health Disparities Collaboratives (HDC), a national QI program conducted in community health centers (HCs), was examined. METHODS: Chief executive officers (CEOs) from health centers in two U.S. regions that participated in the Diabetes HDC (N = 74) were surveyed. In case studies of five selected centers, program costs/revenues, clinical costs/revenues, overall center financial health, and indirect costs/benefits were assessed. RESULTS: CEOs were divided on the HDC's overall effect on finances (38%, worsened; 48%, no change; 14%, improved). Case studies showed that the HDC represented a new administrative cost ($6-$22/patient, year 1) without a regular revenue source. In centers with billing data, the balance of diabetes-related clinical costs/revenues and payor mix did not clearly worsen or improve with the program's start. The most commonly mentioned indirect benefits were improved chronic illness care and enhanced staff morale. DISCUSSION: CEO perceptions of the overall financial impact of the HDC vary widely; the case studies illustrate the numerous factors that may influence these perceptions. Whether the identified balance of costs and benefits is generalizable or sustainable will have to be addressed to optimally design financial reimbursement and incentives.

Hypertension and hyperlipidemia management in patients treated at community health centers.

OBJECTIVE: Community health centers (HCs) provide care for millions of medically underserved Americans with disproportionate burdens of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. For both conditions, treatment guidelines recently became more stringent and quality improvement (QI) efforts have intensified. We assessed hypertension and hyperlipidemia management in HCs during this time of guideline revision and increased QI efforts. DESIGN: Cross-sectional chart review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eleven Midwestern HCs for 2000 and 9 for 2002 provided audit data from 2,976 randomly chosen patients with hypertension and/or hyperlipidemia. MEASUREMENT: Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI/VII) and National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP III) guidelines were used to assess management of these conditions. RESULTS: Hypertension (2000, N=808; 2002, N=692) and hyperlipidemia (2000, N=774; 2002, N=702) outcomes improved for specific clinical subgroups. Hypertensive patients with 1 or more cardiovascular risk factors demonstrated significant improvement (34% vs. 45% controlled at <140/90 mm Hg, p=0.02). Hypertension control for persons with diabetes, renal failure and heart failure increased (16% vs. 28% controlled at <130/85 mm Hg, p=0.006). LDL control increased significantly for patients with 2 or more risk factors (39% vs. 58% controlled at <130 mg/dl, p=0.008). Other clinical subgroups showed trends toward better control, although there was insufficient power to detect significant differences for these groups. CONCLUSION: Hypertension and hyperlipidemia outcomes improved for some risk groups; however, ongoing QI is necessary.

Provider perceptions of limited health literacy in community health centers.

OBJECTIVE: To examine techniques used by community health center (HC) providers to care for patients with limited health literacy (LHL). METHODS: Survey mailed to 803 HC providers in 10 Midwestern states. Response rate was 47.5%. Associations between variables were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models to account for clustering of respondents within HCs. RESULTS: The average provider estimates of LHL prevalence among English- and Spanish-speaking patients were 41+/-24% (mean+/-S.D.) and 48+/-30%, respectively. Those with training in health literacy were more likely to have patients repeat instructions back to check understanding (OR=2.05 and p=0.04) and were more likely to give out health education materials designed for patients with LHL (OR=2.80 and p=0.0002). Providers differed by type in encouraging patients to bring friends or family members to appointments (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Providers estimate LHL to be highly prevalent in their HCs, and use various techniques to assist patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Training in health literacy is associated with increased usage of evidence-based techniques to assist patients with LHL. Providers at all levels would likely benefit from LHL training. Most providers believe providing health education materials designed specifically for patients with LHL would be very helpful.

Providers' assessment of barriers to effective management of hypertension and hyperlipidemia in community health centers.

We explored 251 providers' (47% licensed practical nurses, 27% registered nurses, 10% physicians, 10% physician assistants, 6% other) perceptions of barriers to effective management of hypertension and hyperlipidemia from 72 Midwest community health centers (CHCs). Optimal care for these diseases is difficult in any setting; little is known about the specific barriers CHCs face. Community health centers often have a multidisciplinary team that participates in patient care. Current models of quality improvement and chronic care management require virtually all CHC providers to know clinical guidelines. Providers in this study generally chose hypertension and hyperlipidemia target levels that met or were more stringent than national guidelines, but lacked confidence to address behavioral change and reported obstacles to modifying patient lifestyle. Community health centers should strengthen providers' skills in facilitating lifestyle change. Improving quality of care requires supporting providers' efforts to take patients' psychosocial and financial challenges into account, and revised policies to eliminate financial and cultural barriers to care.