Cargando…

Assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers in the United States: A cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: In the United States, there are nearly 1,400 Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers (HCs) serving low-income and underserved populations and more than 600 of these HCs are located in rural areas. Disparities in quality of medical care in urban vs. rural areas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pourat, Nadereh, Chen, Xiao, Lu, Connie, Zhou, Weihao, Hoang, Hank, Sripipatana, Alek
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7723285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33290435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242844
_version_ 1783620313352765440
author Pourat, Nadereh
Chen, Xiao
Lu, Connie
Zhou, Weihao
Hoang, Hank
Sripipatana, Alek
author_facet Pourat, Nadereh
Chen, Xiao
Lu, Connie
Zhou, Weihao
Hoang, Hank
Sripipatana, Alek
author_sort Pourat, Nadereh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the United States, there are nearly 1,400 Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers (HCs) serving low-income and underserved populations and more than 600 of these HCs are located in rural areas. Disparities in quality of medical care in urban vs. rural areas exist but data on such differences between urban and rural HCs is limited in the literature. We examined whether urban and rural HCs differed in their performance on clinical quality measures before and after controlling for patient, organizational, and contextual characteristics. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used the 2017 Uniform Data System to examine performance on clinical quality measures between urban and rural HCs (n = 1,373). We used generalized linear regression models with the logit link function and binomial distribution, controlling for confounding factors. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found on par performance between urban and rural HCs in all but one clinical quality measure. Rural HCs had lower rates of linking patients newly diagnosed with HIV to care (74% [95% CI: 69%, 80%] vs. 83% [95% CI: 80%, 86%]). We identified control variables that systematically accounted for eliminating urban vs. rural differences in performance on clinical quality measures. We also found that both urban and rural HCs had some clinical quality performance measures that were lower than available national benchmarks. Main limitations included potential discrepancy of urban or rural designation across all HC sites within a HC organization. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight HCs’ contributions in addressing rural disparities in quality of care and identify opportunities for improvement. Performance in both rural and urban HCs may be improved by supporting programs that increase the availability of providers, training, and provision of technical resources.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7723285
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77232852020-12-16 Assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers in the United States: A cross sectional study Pourat, Nadereh Chen, Xiao Lu, Connie Zhou, Weihao Hoang, Hank Sripipatana, Alek PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: In the United States, there are nearly 1,400 Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers (HCs) serving low-income and underserved populations and more than 600 of these HCs are located in rural areas. Disparities in quality of medical care in urban vs. rural areas exist but data on such differences between urban and rural HCs is limited in the literature. We examined whether urban and rural HCs differed in their performance on clinical quality measures before and after controlling for patient, organizational, and contextual characteristics. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used the 2017 Uniform Data System to examine performance on clinical quality measures between urban and rural HCs (n = 1,373). We used generalized linear regression models with the logit link function and binomial distribution, controlling for confounding factors. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found on par performance between urban and rural HCs in all but one clinical quality measure. Rural HCs had lower rates of linking patients newly diagnosed with HIV to care (74% [95% CI: 69%, 80%] vs. 83% [95% CI: 80%, 86%]). We identified control variables that systematically accounted for eliminating urban vs. rural differences in performance on clinical quality measures. We also found that both urban and rural HCs had some clinical quality performance measures that were lower than available national benchmarks. Main limitations included potential discrepancy of urban or rural designation across all HC sites within a HC organization. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight HCs’ contributions in addressing rural disparities in quality of care and identify opportunities for improvement. Performance in both rural and urban HCs may be improved by supporting programs that increase the availability of providers, training, and provision of technical resources. Public Library of Science 2020-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7723285/ /pubmed/33290435 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242844 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) public domain dedication.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pourat, Nadereh
Chen, Xiao
Lu, Connie
Zhou, Weihao
Hoang, Hank
Sripipatana, Alek
Assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers in the United States: A cross sectional study
title Assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers in the United States: A cross sectional study
title_full Assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers in the United States: A cross sectional study
title_fullStr Assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers in the United States: A cross sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers in the United States: A cross sectional study
title_short Assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural Health Resources and Services Administration-funded health centers in the United States: A cross sectional study
title_sort assessing clinical quality performance and staffing capacity differences between urban and rural health resources and services administration-funded health centers in the united states: a cross sectional study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7723285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33290435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242844
work_keys_str_mv AT pouratnadereh assessingclinicalqualityperformanceandstaffingcapacitydifferencesbetweenurbanandruralhealthresourcesandservicesadministrationfundedhealthcentersintheunitedstatesacrosssectionalstudy
AT chenxiao assessingclinicalqualityperformanceandstaffingcapacitydifferencesbetweenurbanandruralhealthresourcesandservicesadministrationfundedhealthcentersintheunitedstatesacrosssectionalstudy
AT luconnie assessingclinicalqualityperformanceandstaffingcapacitydifferencesbetweenurbanandruralhealthresourcesandservicesadministrationfundedhealthcentersintheunitedstatesacrosssectionalstudy
AT zhouweihao assessingclinicalqualityperformanceandstaffingcapacitydifferencesbetweenurbanandruralhealthresourcesandservicesadministrationfundedhealthcentersintheunitedstatesacrosssectionalstudy
AT hoanghank assessingclinicalqualityperformanceandstaffingcapacitydifferencesbetweenurbanandruralhealthresourcesandservicesadministrationfundedhealthcentersintheunitedstatesacrosssectionalstudy
AT sripipatanaalek assessingclinicalqualityperformanceandstaffingcapacitydifferencesbetweenurbanandruralhealthresourcesandservicesadministrationfundedhealthcentersintheunitedstatesacrosssectionalstudy