Article

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

Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
The Journal of ambulatory care management 31(4):319-29. DOI: 10.1097/01.JAC.0000336551.67922.2f
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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%).

0 Bookmarks
 · 
143 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study assessed sustainability of the Family Care Map, a family-centered approach to providing care for Veterans with polytrauma-related injuries, in four Department of Veterans Affairs Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers. We applied a mixed-methods approach. Staff surveys used standardized measures of sustainability, commitment to change, information, and participation during implementation. Qualitative inquiry assessed Family Care Map implementation and facilitators and barriers to sustainability. Staff sustainability perceptions had a significant positive correlation with affective commitment to change, participation, and information received about the change process. Family Care Map integration into standard practices and use of its concepts with patients and families related to staff perceptions about sustainability. The degree of use and integration of the Family Care Map in traumatic brain injury/polytrauma care varied among the Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers. Some successful sustainability strategies included integration into daily workflow and organizational culture. Examples of sustainability barriers included staff awareness and use and outdated information. Some practices, such as measuring and documenting the use of the Family Care Map in treatment plans, may not routinely occur. The focus on family-centered care will require further evaluation of organization-, staff-, and innovation-level attributes that influence sustainability of changes designed to improve family-centered care.
    The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 01/2014; 51(8):1311-24. DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2014.03.0066 · 1.69 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Federally qualified health centers play an important role in providing health care to underserved populations. Recent substantial federal investments in health information technology have enabled health centers to expand their use of electronic health record (EHR) systems, but factors associated with adoption are not clear. We examined 2010-12 administrative data from the Health Resources and Services Administration's Uniform Data System for more than 1,100 health centers. We found that in 2012 nine out of ten health centers had adopted a EHR system, and half had adopted EHRs with basic capabilities. Seven in ten health centers reported that their providers were receiving meaningful-use incentive payments from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Only one-third of health centers had EHR systems that could meet CMS's stage 1 meaningful-use core requirements. Health centers that met the stage 1 requirements had more than twice the odds of receiving quality recognition, compared with centers with less than basic EHRs. Policy initiatives should focus assistance on EHR capabilities with slower uptake; connect providers with technical assistance to support implementation; and leverage the connection between meaningful use and quality recognition programs.
    Health Affairs 07/2014; 33(7):1254-61. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1274 · 4.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We assessed patient and provider barriers and facilitators to sustainability of a collaborative depression care model for depression treatment in predominantly Hispanic diabetes patients in safety net care clinics. Findings: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with patients and providers at two community clinics participating in a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of the Multi-faceted Depression and Diabetes Program (MDDP), a socio-culturally adapted collaborative care model. Analysis identified eight themes grouped into three categories: barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for program sustainability. Barriers included patient concerns about use of medication and provider concerns about use of psychotherapy, increased workload for clinic staff, delay in receiving outcomes data, and lack of resources to sustain the program. Facilitators included patient benefits such as improved clinical outcomes, quality of care received, access, and satisfaction; provider benefits such as increased awareness and reduced anxiety; and clinic benefits in the form of reduced costs of care. Recommendations included changes in communication patterns among providers, specific changes in procedures, changes in resources, and changes in clinic organizational culture. Applications: Sustainable adoption of collaborative depression care for underserved populations in safety net care systems by organizational decision-makers and providers requires: stable funding and qualified staff; technologies to facilitate provider access to easily applied treatment guidelines, information exchange between primary care physicians and depression care providers, and routine monitoring of patient depression symptoms and treatment adherence and satisfaction; and treatment consistent with patient preferences.
    Journal of Social Work 01/2011; 11(1):99-117. DOI:10.1177/1468017310381310 · 1.00 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
19 Downloads
Available from
Jun 2, 2014