Background: Dartmouth Geisel Migrant Health (DGMH) is a medical student group that provides on-site health services for Spanish-speaking dairy workers in rural Vermont and New Hampshire in conjunction with a federally qualified health center (FQHC).Study Objective: This project was undertaken to evaluate and improve the services provided by DGMH and the FQHC and to refine understanding of the target population.Methods: We surveyed 25 workers at 6 collaborating dairy farms to identify health priorities and concerns and perceived barriers and facilitators to health care for these workers. Surveys were administered over 2 weeks in July 2015. Interpreter-mediated appointment and sliding-fee-scale data from a period 7 months that spanned survey administration were also assessed.Results: Diabetes and hypertension were the most common health concerns. Thirty-two percent of participants reported 10 or more days of depressed mood in the past month. Insurance and language were the most common barriers to health care and employers and on-site clinics were the most common facilitators. Appointments most often addressed women's health, gastrointestinal problems, health maintenance, diabetes, and back pain. Thirty FQHC sliding-fee-scale applications were completed by workers.Conclusions: These Spanish-speaking dairy-farm workers have many health concerns and perceive substantial barriers to health care. Collaboration between medical students, a rural FQHC, and farm employers provides important services that facilitate health care access among this population.

Background. Variation in clinical decision-making could be explained by clinicians' tendency to make 'snap-decisions' versus making more reflective decisions. One common clinical decision with unexplained variation is the prescription of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Objective. We hypothesized that clinicians who tended toward greater cognitive reflection would be less likely to prescribe antibiotics for ARIs. Methods. The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) is a psychological test with three questions with intuitive but incorrect answers that respondents reach if they do not consider the question carefully. The CRT is scored from 0 to 3, representing the number of correct answers. A higher score indicates greater cognitive reflection. We administered the CRT to 187 clinicians in 50 primary care practices. From billing and electronic health record data, we calculated clinician-level antibiotic prescribing rates for ARIs in 3 categories: all ARIs, antibiotic-appropriate ARIs and non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs. Results. A total of 57 clinicians (31%) scored 0 points on the CRT; 38 (20%) scored 1; 51 (27%) scored 2; and 41 (22%) scored 3. We found a roughly U-shaped association between cognitive reflection and antibiotic prescribing. The antibiotic prescribing rate for CRT scores of 0, 1, 2 and 3 for all ARIs (n = 37 080 visits) was 32%, 26%, 25% and 30% (P = 0.10); for antibiotic-appropriate ARIs (n = 11 220 visits) was 60%, 55%, 54% and 58% (P = 0.63); and for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs (n = 25 860 visits) was 21%, 17%, 13% and 18%, respectively (P = 0.03). Conclusions. In contrast to our hypothesis, there appears to be a 'sweet-spot' of cognitive reflection for antibiotic prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs. Differences in clinicians' cognitive reflection may be associated with other variations in care.