BACKGROUND: Leaders and policymakers need an accurate appraisal of the federally qualified community health center (CHC) quality improvement (QI) literature to make informed decisions for the CHC program. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to (1) summarize the content and findings of CHC QI studies to date, (2) systematically rate the quality of those studies, and (3) outline 10 important areas for future CHC QI research. METHODS: We searched medical and nonmedical databases to identify QI studies in CHC settings. We systematically reviewed identified studies for the features of their QI interventions and for the methodological quality of their evaluations. We combined results from the review with input from the CHC community to generate an agenda for future CHC QI research. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified and reviewed. Interventions mainly targeted chronic conditions and screening practices and used 1 to 11 of 14 different QI tactics; evaluations comprised 14 observational and 4 randomized study designs. CHC QI interventions have been effective in improving processes of care for diabetes and cancer screening in the short term; their effectiveness in the long term and regarding outcomes of care have not been demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: QI interventions in CHC setting are promising, but future interventions and evaluations should answer critical basic questions about QI, including the following: What are the best models of QI? How can QI improvements be effectively implemented and sustained? What are the global effects of QI (positive and negative)? How can QI be made financially viable and sensible from both the CHC and societal perspectives?
BACKGROUND: Leaders and policymakers need an accurate appraisal of the federally qualified community health center (CHC) quality improvement (QI) literature to make informed decisions for the CHC program. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to (1) summarize the content and findings of CHC QI studies to date, (2) systematically rate the quality of those studies, and (3) outline 10 important areas for future CHC QI research. METHODS: We searched medical and nonmedical databases to identify QI studies in CHC settings. We systematically reviewed identified studies for the features of their QI interventions and for the methodological quality of their evaluations. We combined results from the review with input from the CHC community to generate an agenda for future CHC QI research. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified and reviewed. Interventions mainly targeted chronic conditions and screening practices and used 1 to 11 of 14 different QI tactics; evaluations comprised 14 observational and 4 randomized study designs. CHC QI interventions have been effective in improving processes of care for diabetes and cancer screening in the short term; their effectiveness in the long term and regarding outcomes of care have not been demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: QI interventions in CHC setting are promising, but future interventions and evaluations should answer critical basic questions about QI, including the following: What are the best models of QI? How can QI improvements be effectively implemented and sustained? What are the global effects of QI (positive and negative)? How can QI be made financially viable and sensible from both the CHC and societal perspectives?
Authors: Leiyu Shi; Lydie A Lebrun; Jinsheng Zhu; Arthur S Hayashi; Ravi Sharma; Charles A Daly; Alek Sripipatana; Quyen Ngo-Metzger Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Karen Cheung; Adil Moiduddin; Marshall H Chin; Melinda L Drum; Sydney E S Brown; Jessica E Graber; Loretta Heuer; Michael T Quinn; Cynthia T Schaefer; Amy E Schlotthauer; Elbert S Huang Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2008 Apr-Jun
Authors: Marshall H Chin; Anne C Kirchhoff; Amy E Schlotthauer; Jessica E Graber; Sydney E S Brown; Ann Rimington; Melinda L Drum; Cynthia T Schaefer; Loretta J Heuer; Elbert S Huang; Morgan E Shook; Hui Tang; Lawrence P Casalino Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2008 Oct-Dec
Authors: Erin C Hall; Chaoyi Zheng; Russell C Langan; Lynt B Johnson; Nawar Shara; Waddah B Al-Refaie Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Alyna T Chien; Anne C Kirchhoff; Cynthia T Schaefer; Elbert S Huang; Sydney E S Brown; Loretta Heuer; Jessica Graber; Hui Tang; Lawrence P Casalino; Marshall H Chin Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Michael T Quinn; Kathryn E Gunter; Robert S Nocon; Sarah E Lewis; Anusha M Vable; Hui Tang; Seo-Young Park; Lawrence P Casalino; Elbert S Huang; Jonathan Birnberg; Deborah L Burnet; W Thomas Summerfelt; Marshall H Chin Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2013 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Abigail E Wilkes; Priya M John; Anusha M Vable; Amanda Campbell; Loretta Heuer; Cynthia Schaefer; Lisa Vinci; Melinda L Drum; Marshall H Chin; Michael T Quinn; Deborah L Burnet Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2013
Authors: Einar Hovlid; Oddbjørn Bukve; Kjell Haug; Aslak Bjarne Aslaksen; Christian von Plessen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Huda M Ashoor; Roberta Cardoso; Heather MacDonald; Elise Cogo; Monika Kastner; Laure Perrier; Ann McKibbon; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Sharon E Straus Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 7.327