Search

Food is medicine (FIM) initiatives are an emerging strategy for addressing nutrition-related health disparities increasingly endorsed by providers, payers, and policymakers. However, food insecurity screening protocols and oversight of medically-tailored food assistance programs are novel for many healthcare settings. Here, we describe the pre-implementation planning processes used to successfully engage federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs) across Kansas to develop new FIM initiatives. A Kansas-based philanthropic foundation facilitated pre-implementation planning for FQHCs over 17 months across 3 stages: 1) Community inquiry, 2) FIM learning event with invitation for FQHC attendees to request pre-implementation funding, and 3) Pre-implementation planning workshops and application assignments for FQHC grantees to develop a FIM implementation grant proposal. We evaluated satisfaction and perceived utility of these pre-implementation planning activities via post-workshop surveys and qualitative comparisons of FIM design components from pre-implementation and implementation grant applications. All 7 FQHCs attending the learning event applied for and were awarded pre-implementation planning grants; 6 submitted an implementation grant application following workshop completion. FQHCs rated pre-implementation support activities favorably; however, most clinics cited limited staff as a barrier to effective planning. As compared to pre-implementation planning grant proposals, all FQHCs elected to narrow their priority population to people with pre-diabetes or diabetes with better articulation of evidence-based nutrition prescriptions and intervention models in their final program designs. In the midst of a nationwide FIM groundswell, we recommend that funders, clinic stakeholders, and evaluators work together to devise and financially support appropriate pre-implementation planning activities prior to launching new FIM initiatives., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Marianna S. Wetherill, Dr. Kristina M. Bridges, and Dr. Susan P. Harvey received financial support from the Sunflower Foundation for their work as advisors for the initiative described in this manuscript. There are no other competing interests to report.

Objective: To learn from the experiences of innovative primary care practices that have successfully developed care teams., Research Design: A 2½-day working conference was convened with representatives from 10 innovative primary care practices, content experts, and researchers to discuss experiences of developing care teams. Qualitative data included observation notes, transcripts of conference sessions and interviews, and narrative summaries of innovations. Case summaries of practices and an analysis matrix were created to identify common themes., Participants: Ten practices known nationally for innovations in team-based care participated in the conference represented by 1 to 2 practice members., Results: Two domains emerged related to creating effective teams and funding them. Participants emphasized the importance of making practice values explicit and involving everyone in the change process, standardizing routine processes, and mitigating resistance. They also highlighted that team-based care adds comprehensiveness, not necessarily productivity. They, thus, highlighted the need for a long-term financial vision, including resourcefulness and alternate funding., Conclusions: Team-based care is possible and valuable in primary care. It is difficult to develop and sustain, however, and requires dedicated time and resources. The challenges these highly motivated practices described raise the question of feasibility for more average practices in the current funding environment.