BACKGROUND: Persons with diabetes have 27% elevated risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) and are disproportionately from priority health disparities populations. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) struggle to implement CRC screening programs for average risk patients. Strategies to effectively prioritize and optimize CRC screening for patients with diabetes in the primary care safety-net are needed.
METHODS: Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment Framework, we conducted a stakeholder-engaged process to identify multi-level change objectives for implementing optimized CRC screening for patients with diabetes in FQHCs. To identify change objectives, an implementation planning group of stakeholders from FQHCs, safety-net screening programs, and policy implementers were assembled and met over a 7-month period. Depth interviews (n = 18-20) with key implementation actors were conducted to identify and refine the materials, methods and strategies needed to support an implementation plan across different FQHC contexts. The planning group endorsed the following multi-component implementation strategies: identifying clinic champions, development/distribution of patient educational materials, developing and implementing quality monitoring systems, and convening clinical meetings. To support clinic champions during the initial implementation phase, two learning collaboratives and bi-weekly virtual facilitation will be provided. In single group, hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial, we will implement and evaluate these strategies in a in six safety net clinics (n = 30 patients with diabetes per site). The primary clinical outcomes are: (1) clinic-level colonoscopy uptake and (2) overall CRC screening rates for patients with diabetes assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation. Implementation outcomes include provider and staff fidelity to the implementation plan, patient acceptability, and feasibility will be assessed at baseline and 12-months post-implementation.
CONCLUSIONS: Study findings are poised to inform development of evidence-based implementation strategies to be tested for scalability and sustainability in a future hybrid 2 effectiveness-implementation clinical trial. The research protocol can be adapted as a model to investigate the development of targeted cancer prevention strategies in additional chronically ill priority populations.
BACKGROUND: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05785780) on March 27, 2023 (last updated October 21, 2023).

BACKGROUND: Early initiation of prenatal care is widely accepted to improve the health outcomes of pregnancy for both mothers and their infants. Identification of the various barriers to entry into care that patients experience may inform and improve health care provision and, in turn, improve the patient\'s ability to receive necessary care.
OBJECTIVE: This study implements a mixed-methods approach to establish methods and procedures for identifying barriers to early entry to prenatal care in a medically-vulnerable patient population and areas for future quality improvement initiatives.
METHODS: An initial chart review was conducted on obstetrics patients that initiated prenatal care after their first trimester at a large federally qualified health center in Brooklyn, NY, to determine patient-specified reasons for delay. A thematic analysis of these data was implemented in combination with both parametric and non-parametric analyses to characterize the population of interest, and to identify the primary determinants of delayed entry.
RESULTS: The age of patients in the population of interest (n = 169) was bimodal, with a range of 15 - 43 years and a mean of 28 years. The mean gestational age of entry into prenatal care was 19 weeks. The chart review revealed that 8% recently moved to Brooklyn from outside of NYC or the USA. Nine percent had difficulty scheduling an initial prenatal visit within their first trimester. Teenage pregnancy accounted for 7%. Provider challenges with documentation (21%) were noted. The most common themes identified (n = 155) were the patient being in transition (21%), the pregnancy being unplanned (17%), and issues with linkage to care (15%), including no shows or patient cancellations. Patients who were late to prenatal care also differed from their peers dramatically, as they were more likely to be Spanish-speaking, to be young, and to experience a relatively long delay between pregnancy confirmation and entry into care. Moreover, the greatest determinant of delayed entry into care was patient age.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a process for other like clinics to identify patients who are at risk for delayed entry to prenatal care and highlight common barriers to entry. Future initiatives include the introduction of a smart data element to document reasons for delay and use of community health workers for dedicated outreach after no show appointments or patient cancellations.

UNASSIGNED: Although depression is common in primary care, challenges to timely intervention exist, particularly for communities of color and lower socioeconomic status. Our objective was to understand barriers and facilitators to mental healthcare access among a sample of patients receiving care at a federally qualified health center (FQHC) in Minnesota, United States.
UNASSIGNED: We qualitatively interviewed 34 patients of an urban FQHC, purposively sampled on race/ethnicity, insurance status, language, and depression symptom status (based on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 responses). We inductively and deductively analyzed interview data, leveraging theory in both the codebook development and analysis processes.
UNASSIGNED: Participants, who were predominantly English-speaking, female, not privately insured, and people of color, shared numerous barriers and facilitators to accessing mental healthcare. Prominent barriers primarily concerned healthcare providers, including perceived dismissal of mental health concerns and challenges with provider continuity. Additional barriers included the costs of mental health care, communication breakdowns, the patient portal, and community-specific perceptions of mental health. Prominent facilitators included clinic organizational factors (internal and external) and staff friendliness and warmth. Other factors including consideration of patients\' financial situation, integrated management of behavioral and physical health conditions, language concordant staff, the telehealth visit modality, and the clinic\'s social mission were also raised as facilitating access.
UNASSIGNED: Patient voices from a single FQHC illustrate the challenges and possibilities of providing mental healthcare in safety net settings. Clinical, strategy, and policy solutions can be tailored to minimize barriers and optimize facilitators documented herein.

Federally Qualified Health Centers are charged with providing comprehensive health care in traditionally underserved areas, underscoring their importance in caring for and promoting health equity for the large portion of historically marginalized communities in this setting. There is a significant need to ensure Federally Qualified Health Centers are equipped to appropriately address the immense behavioral health needs common among patients served. Care coordination is an evidence-based model that is increasingly utilized in Federally Qualified Health Centers to improve care equity and outcomes. Addressing and supporting behavioral health needs is a key aspect of such care coordination models. Context-specific considerations and programmatic supports, particularly those that address the needs of care coordinators and the complex patients they serve, are needed to ensure such models can appropriately meet and address the behavioral health concerns of the diverse populations served. The goal of this study was to present a mixed-methods case study that systematically applies implementation frameworks to conduct a needs and context assessment to inform the development and testing of evidence-based practice strategies and implementation support as part of a care coordination program within a partnered Federally Qualified Health Center.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to reductions in cervical cancer screening and colposcopy. Therefore, in this mixed methods study we explored perceived pandemic-related practice changes to cervical cancer screenings in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).
Between October 2021 and June 2022, we conducted a national web survey of clinicians (physicians and advanced practice providers) who performed cervical cancer screening in FQHCs in the United States during the post-acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with a sub-set of qualitative interviews via video conference, to examine perceived changes in cervical cancer screening practices during the pandemic.
A total of 148 clinicians completed surveys; a subset (n=13) completed qualitative interviews. Most (86%) reported reduced cervical cancer screening early in the pandemic, and 28% reported continued reduction in services at the time of survey completion (October 2021- July 2022). Nearly half (45%) reported staff shortages impacting their ability to screen or track patients. Compared to clinicians in Obstetrics/Gynecology/Women\'s health, those in family medicine and other specialties more often reported reduced screening compared to pre-pandemic. Most (92%) felt that screening using HPV self-sampling would be very or somewhat helpful to address screening backlogs. Qualitative interviews highlighted the impacts of staff shortages and strategies for improvement.
Findings highlight that in late 2021 and early 2022, many clinicians in FQHCs reported reduced cervical cancer screening and of pandemic-related staffing shortages impacting screening and follow-up. If not addressed, reduced screenings among underserved populations could worsen cervical cancer disparities in the future.
This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, who had no role in the study\'s design, conduct, or reporting.

BACKGROUND: The social determinants of health (SDOH) are the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age. Lack of SDOH training of dental providers on SDOH may result in suboptimal care provided to pediatric dental patients and their families. The purpose of this pilot study is to report the feasibility and acceptability of SDOH screening and referral by pediatric dentistry residents and faculty in the dental clinics of Family Health Centers at NYU Langone (FHC), a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) network in Brooklyn, NY, USA.
METHODS: Guided by the Implementation Outcomes Framework, 15 pediatric dentists and 40 pediatric dental patient-parent/guardian dyads who visited FHC in 2020-2021 for recall or treatment appointments participated in this study. The a priori feasibility and acceptability criteria for these outcomes were that after completing the Parent Adversity Scale (a validated SDOH screening tool), ≥ 80% of the participating parents/guardians would feel comfortable completing SDOH screening and referral at the dental clinic (acceptable), and ≥ 80% of the participating parents/guardians who endorsed SDOH needs would be successfully referred to an assigned counselor at the Family Support Center (feasible).
RESULTS: The most prevalent SDOH needs endorsed were worried within the past year that food would run out before had money to buy more (45.0%) and would like classes to learn English, read better, or obtain a high school degree (45.0%). Post-intervention, 83.9% of the participating parents/guardians who expressed an SDOH need were successfully referred to an assigned counselor at the Family Support Center for follow-up, and 95.0% of the participating parents/guardians felt comfortable completing the questionnaire at the dental clinic, surpassing the a priori feasibility and acceptability criteria, respectively. Furthermore, while most (80.0%) of the participating dental providers reported being trained in SDOH, only one-third (33.3%) usually or always assess SDOH for their pediatric dental patients, and most (53.8%) felt minimally comfortable discussing challenges faced by pediatric dental patient families and referring patients to resources in the community.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides novel evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of SDOH screening and referral by dentists in the pediatric dental clinics of an FQHC network.

UNASSIGNED: Diabetes and depression may present concurrently, and clinical pharmacists are well equipped to manage these conditions. Clinical pharmacists were grant funded to implement a diabetes-focused randomized controlled trial in a Federally Qualified Health Center. The objective of this analysis is to evaluate if glycemic control and depressive symptoms improve for patients with diabetes and depression with additional management from clinical pharmacists compared with those receiving the standard of care.
UNASSIGNED: This is a post hoc subgroup analysis of a diabetes-focused randomized controlled trial. Pharmacists enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and a glycated hemoglobin (A1C) greater than 8% and randomly assigned them to 1 of 2 cohorts, one managed by the primary care provider alone and one with additional care from the pharmacist. Pharmacists completed encounters with patients who have T2DM with or without depression to comprehensively optimize pharmacotherapy while tracking glycemic and depressive outcomes throughout the study.
UNASSIGNED: A1C improved from baseline to 6 months in patients with depressive symptoms who received additional care from pharmacists by -2.4 percentage points (SD, 2.41) compared with a -0.1 percentage point (SD, 1.78) reduction in the control arm (P  .0081), and there was no change in depressive symptoms.
UNASSIGNED: Patients with T2DM and depressive symptoms experienced better diabetes outcomes with additional pharmacist management compared with a similar cohort of patients with depressive symptoms, managed independently by primary care providers. These patients with diabetes and comorbid depression received a higher level of engagement and care from the pharmacists, which led to more therapeutic interventions.

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) medications have improved safety, efficacy, and laboratory monitoring requirements compared to warfarin. However, available data are limited on the frequency and clinical outcomes of pharmacist-driven warfarin-to-DOAC switches. We aimed to quantify the frequencies and rationale of warfarin-to-DOAC switches in an underserved population. We also assessed clinical outcomes and compliance with recommended laboratory monitoring after switches.
This retrospective cohort study included adult (age 18 years or older) patients on warfarin who were assessed by a clinical pharmacist for switch appropriateness to a DOAC. Study data were collected via manual chart review and included demographics, comorbid illnesses, switch status, the rationale for or against switching, incidence of thromboses and bleeds within 6 months of the switch assessment, and the time to the first complete blood count and renal and hepatic function tests after the switch. Statistical analysis utilized descriptive statistics, including the mean and SD, median and interquartile range, and frequencies and percentages.
Among 189 eligible patients, 108 (57%) were switched from warfarin to a DOAC. The primary rationales for switching were less monitoring (64%) and labile international normalized ratio (32%). The main reason against switching was DOAC inappropriateness (53%), such as in morbid obesity (14%). Patient preference was commonly cited in both groups (54% and 36%, respectively). The overall incidence of thrombotic events (9%) and bleeds (15%) after switch assessment was low. Laboratory monitoring after switches was consistent with current recommendations.
No increase in harm was observed 6 months after switch assessment when pharmacists at a family medicine clinic switched underserved patients from warfarin to DOACs.

UNASSIGNED: To determine if pain screening and functional assessment results are associated with new diagnoses and treatment for pain in primary care.
UNASSIGNED: Observational study at 13 primary care sites of a statewide federally qualified health center that implemented routine screening and functional assessment for all adults in primary care. The study group included 10,091 adults aged 18+ who had an in-person visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, where they screened positive for chronic pain and completed a 3-question functional assessment with the PEG (Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity). Multivariate logistic regressions quantified associations between pain frequency, diagnosis and treatment, sociodemographics, comorbidities, and self-reported severe pain impairment with pain diagnoses and treatment documented after screening.
UNASSIGNED: Patients were mostly women (60.3%), Latinx (41.1%), English-speaking (80.1%), and Medicaid-insured (62.0%); they averaged 49.1 years old (SD = 13.7 years). Patients with severe pain impairment or who were Latinx were more likely to get a newly documented pain diagnosis (absolute risk difference [ARD]: 13.2% and 8.6%, ps < 0.0001), while patients with mental health/substance use or medical comorbidities were less likely (ARDs: -20.0% to -6.2%, ps < 0.001). Factors most consistently associated with treatment were prior treatment of the same modality (4 of 7 treatments, ARDs = 27.3% to 44.1%, ps <0.0001), new pain diagnosis (5 of 7, ARDs = 3.2% to 27.4%, ps <0.001), and severe impairment (4 of 7, ARDs = 2.6% to 6.5%, ps < 0.0001). A new diagnosis had the strongest association with non-opioid pain analgesics and physical medicine (ARD = 27.0% and 27.4%, p < 0.0001). Latinx patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesics and mental health/substance use medications and counseling (ARDs = -3.3% to 7.5%, ps <0.0001).
UNASSIGNED: Screening and assessment with patient-reported tools may influence pain care. Care for Latinx patients differed from non-Latinx white patients.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder that affects 6% of U.S. adults, yet is treated in only 30% of affected individuals and even fewer low-income individuals. One third of the nation\'s low-income individuals are treated in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). Most of these facilities lack capacity to provide their patients with first-line, evidence-based treatments for PTSD such as Prolonged Exposure (PE). To address this problem, PE has been adapted for use in a primary care setting and demonstrated efficacy in a brief model for military service members (PE in Primary Care: PE-PC). The effectiveness of this treatment in civilian, low-resource settings such as FQHCs is unknown. This pilot study tested the feasibility and acceptability of PE-PC in 30 Michigan FQHC patients. High rates of therapy participation suggest that the intervention was feasible and acceptable. Semi-structured interview data from 10 patients and 5 FQHC providers indicated that the intervention was helpful and filled a critical need for effective PTSD treatment in the FQHC setting. Interviews also elucidated barriers such as transportation, provider training, and time commitment for patients and providers. These findings set the stage for a full-scale randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of PE-PC on PTSD symptoms in this low-resource, high-need setting.Trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03711266. October 18, 2018.