(1/35) HRSA's Models That Work Program: implications for improving access to primary health care.
The main objective of the Models That Work Campaign (MTW) is improving access to health care for vulnerable and underserved populations. A collaboration between the Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC) at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and 39 cosponsors--among them national associations, state and federal agencies, community-based organizations, foundations, and businesses--this initiative gives recognition and visibility to innovative and effective service delivery models. Models are selected based on a set of criteria that includes delivery of high quality primary care services, community participation, integration of health and social services, quantifiable outcomes, and replicability. Winners of the competition are showcased nationally and hired to provide training to other communities, to document and publish their strategies, and to provide onsite technical assistance on request. (+info)
(2/35) Improving HIV/AIDS services through palliative care: an HRSA perspective. Health Resources and Services Administration.
There has been a dramatic shift of the human immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) epidemic into poor, marginalized, and minority communities in the US. At the same time, the availability of new highly active antiretroviral treatments has made it possible for a large number of individuals to live for a much longer time with their disease. A net result is that the US is faced with an increasing number of people who are living with HIV/AIDS and are dependent on publicly supported health care services. In this paper, we review the palliative care efforts of the federal agency, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), responsible for providing Ryan White CARE Act HIV/AIDS care to medically underserved populations. In addition to supporting traditional hospice care, HRSA's HIV/AIDS Bureau has begun a series of initiatives that apply a broader concept of palliative care to its HIV programs in hospital- and community-based settings. Our interest is not to substitute palliation for access to new HIV therapies, such as highly active antiretroviral treatments, but to ensure that our health delivery systems attend to the alleviation of symptoms and suffering along with the provision of antiretroviral and other necessary treatments. HRSA's HIV/AIDS Bureau is organizing a broader provision of palliative care for its clients and actively contributing to improving care for the disenfranchised internationally. (+info)
(3/35) Military and VA general dentistry training: a national resource.
In 1999, HRSA contracted with the UCLA School of Dentistry to evaluate the postgraduate general dentistry (PDG) training programs. The purpose of this article is to compare the program characteristics of the PGD training programs sponsored by the Armed Services (military) and VA. Surveys mailed to sixty-six VA and forty-two military program directors in fall 2000 sought information regarding the infrastructure of the program, the program emphasis, resident preparation prior to entering the program, and a description of patients served and types of services provided. Of the eighty-one returned surveys (75 percent response rate), thirty were received from military program directors and fifty-one were received from VA program directors. AEGDs reported treating a higher proportion of children patients and GPRs more medically intensive, disadvantaged and HIV/AIDS patients. Over half of the directors reported increases in curriculum emphasis in implantology. The program directors reported a high level of inadequate preparation among incoming dental residents. Having a higher ratio of residents to total number of faculty predicted inadequate preparation (p=.022) although the model was weak. Although HRSA doesn't financially support federally sponsored programs, their goal of improved dental training to care for medically compromised individuals is facilitated through these programs, thus making military and VA general dentistry programs a national resource. (+info)
(4/35) Curriculum emphasis and resident preparation in postgraduate general dentistry programs.
In 1999 HRSA contracted with the UCLA School of Dentistry to evaluate the impact of federal funding on postgraduate general dentistry programs. Part of that evaluation analyzed curriculum emphasis and preparation of incoming residents in advanced general dentistry programs over a five-year period. Directors of 208 civilian AEGD and GPR programs were surveyed about the curriculum content of their programs, increased or decreased emphasis in thirty subject areas, and resident preparation and quality (GPA and National Board scores). Results indicate that curriculum changes in AEGD and GPR programs over the time period have been responsive to the changing nature of general practice. At least half of all program directors reported that their residents were less than adequately prepared in fourteen curriculum areas. Sub-analyses were conducted for AEGD/GPR programs and HRSA-funded versus nonfunded programs. Multivariate regression identified lower student quality as the most important program variable in predicting a perceived need for resident remediation. Logistic regression showed that programs with higher resident GPA and National Board Part I scores had less difficulty filling resident positions. (+info)
(5/35) Characteristics of civilian postdoctoral general dentistry programs.
U.S. civilian (non-VA/non-military) Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) and General Practice Residency (GPR) programs were identified (n=208) and surveyed. The assessment evaluated infrastructure support, populations served, services provided, and trainee stipends. One hundred thirty-one programs responded (thirty-two AEGD, 64 percent/ninety-nine GPR, 63 percent). Sixty-nine programs were HRSA-funded (53 percent), and sixty-three (47 percent) were nonfunded. One hundred and five responses identified hospital/medical center resources; fifty-six indicated dental school support. Mean faculty support was similar regardless of program type or HRSA funding. Mean first-year positions in AEGDs were greater than GPRs. Mean first-year GPR positions were greater in funded than in nonfunded programs. A comparison of AEGD and GPR programs showed that residents in GPRs treated more children, medically intensive, economically/socially disadvantaged, and in-patient/same-day surgery patients (p<0.05). Residents in AEGDs treated more healthy adults (p<0.05). GPRs treated more lower fee (no pay, Medicaid, welfare/general relief, Medicare, and capitation/HMO) patients. AEGDs treated more insurance/private pay patients (p=.0001). No differences existed in comprehensive care and emergency visits between AEGDs and GPRs. GPRs treated more hospital-based patients. The mean stipends for GPRs ($32,055) and AEGDs ($22,403) were different. (+info)
(6/35) A collaborative effort to enhance HIV/STI screening in five county jails.
Funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) supports collaborations among health departments (CA, FL, GA, IL, MA, NJ, NY), correctional facilities, and community-based organizations to improve services to HIV-infected inmates, particularly as they return to the community. Additionally, HRSA funded the Evaluation and Program Support Center to guide the implementation of a multi-site evaluation of the Corrections Demonstration Project (CDP). The authors present a model approach to the problem of health disparities that involves forging collaborations among federal funders, public health departments, corrections, community-based organizations, and the scientific research community. They show how such collaboration can promote the reduction of racial/ethnic health disparities. The authors examined disease screening activities in five county jails. Screening for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) was offered during the medical intake process and during HIV prevention education sessions. One thousand twenty inmates were tested from July 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, for HIV infection, and 171 (17%) positive cases were identified (largely due to confirmatory testing). Of HIV-positive inmates, 83 (49%) were started on antiretroviral treatment. Additionally, 2,160 were tested for chlamydia, 1,327 for gonorrhea (largely duplicated), and 937 (duplicated) for syphilis. Across all three STIs, 78% of those who tested positive were treated. The remaining 22% either declined treatment, were released prior to notification of results, or were released prior to starting treatment. The CDP offers a model approach for addressing the poor health status of members of racial/ethnic minority groups by developing collaborations between corrections, public health departments, community-based organizations, and academia. An outgrowth of this collaboration is the improved capacity to detect and treat disease, which is a necessary component of a comprehensive HIV risk reduction program. (+info)
(7/35) Delivering HIV services to vulnerable populations: an evaluation and research agenda.
In May 2000, the HIV/AIDS Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration convened HIV experts from throughout the country to identify new and emerging areas of research needed to guide policy and programmatic decisions on HIV service delivery to vulnerable populations. This article describes the process used to develop an evaluation/research agenda, discusses key findings and recommendations of the conference, and proposes a set of principles to guide the design and conduct of future investigations. Conference participants identified nine major evaluation/research themes that span the continuum of HIV behavioral prevention services and treatment. They recommended focusing future research on questions relevant to populations experiencing rapid rates of increase in HIV infection (for example, women, people of color, and adolescents and young adults) and considering explanatory factors at multiple levels of analysis (individual, clinician, organization, service delivery system, and environment). (+info)
(8/35) PGD training and its impact on general dentist practice patterns.
This study compares the practice patterns of general dentists with and without formal advanced training in AGED or GPR programs. The UCLA School of Dentistry surveyed a random selection of dentists from graduating years 1989, 1993, and 1997 as part of a Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA)-supported evaluation of the impact of federal funding on postgraduate general dentistry (PGD) programs. Using a sample drawn by the American Dental Association (ADA), 6,725 dentists were surveyed about their practice, advanced training, patients served, and services provided. Of the 2,029 dentists (30 percent) who responded, 49 percent were practicing dentists with no formal advanced training in general dentistry or one of the eight ADA specialties; 7 percent had Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) experience; 20 percent trained in a General Practice Residency (GPR); and 24 percent were specialists. Additionally, 7 percent of respondents had PGD training and a clinical specialty. GPR-trained dentists were significantly more likely to be on a hospital staff and to treat medically compromised patients even after ten years of practice. PGD dentists were less likely to seek specialty training. Major reasons for seeking PGD training were increasing treatment speed, learning to treat medically compromised patients, and wanting hospital experience. Primary reasons for not selecting training were starting a practice and having a great practice opportunity. Our conclusion is that PGD training has an enduring impact on practice patterns and improves access to dental care for underserved populations. (+info)