Veterans Affairs Primary Care Research Articles

Understanding Pregnancy-Related Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication and Management Among Women Veterans.

Background: Women veterans who experience certain conditions during pregnancy, such as gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, and gestational diabetes, are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) later in life. Many women are unaware of this risk. Furthermore, women often face financial, socioeconomic, or physical challenges when trying to make healthy behavior modifications to reduce CVD risk. Objective: To examine Veterans' pregnancy-related cardiovascular (CV) risk conditions, risk identification, and risk communication with primary care providers. Research Design: Telephone/video interviews were conducted with female Veterans who had experienced at least one sex-specific CV risk condition during pregnancy. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using content analysis techniques. Major themes and representative quotes were derived. Results: Twenty-eight women Veterans participated in the study, conducted between October and December 2023. A majority of participants were racial/ethnic minorities, and the average age was 38. Four themes arose: (1) Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records may contain limited information regarding CV risk factors experienced during pregnancy; (2) strong relationships between Veterans and their VA primary care providers can facilitate management of CV risk factors following pregnancy; (3) some Veterans receive vague and/or conflicting recommendations for CV risk reduction following pregnancy; and (4) social determinants of health may play a key role in Veterans' ability to follow recommended CV risk reduction behaviors. Conclusions: Women Veterans with pregnancy-related CV risk conditions may not know that they are at increased risk of developing future CVD conditions, often because VA providers receive limited records from outside providers. Those who are aware often receive conflicting or vague recommendations to address these risk factors. When trying to follow CV health recommendations, many women have difficulty due to lack of finances, childcare, or safe areas. Future interventions should be aimed at improving access to medical records between outside and VA providers, patient education, and access to heart-healthy resources.

"We don't get that information right back to us unless it's a full-blown cancer": Challenges coordinating lung cancer screening across healthcare systems.

To examine how lung cancer screening (LCS) is coordinated across healthcare systems, specifically Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA settings. We conducted primary qualitative data collection in six VA medical centers with established LCS programs from November 2020 to November 2021. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 48 primary care providers, LCS program coordinators and directors, and pulmonologists. Thematic analysis examined spontaneously raised narratives related to initiating and coordinating LCS for Veterans screened in non-VA settings. We mapped coordination challenges to each step of the LCS care continuum. While non-VA options increased access to LCS for Veterans, VA medical centers lacked clear processes for initiating LCS referrals and tracking Veterans across the LCS continuum when screening occurred in non-VA settings. The responsibility of coordinating LCS with community providers often fell to VA primary care providers rather than LCS programs. Gaps in communication and data transfer contributed to delayed evaluation of potentially cancerous nodules post-screening, raising concerns about compromised care quality when LCS was shared with non-VA settings. While policies expanding LCS for Veterans in non-VA settings increase access, lack of consistent processes to initiate referrals, obtain results, and promote timely downstream evaluation fragmented care and delayed evaluation of concerning nodules. These unintended consequences highlight a need to address cross-system coordination challenges. Strategies to better coordinate LCS between VA and non-VA settings are essential to achieve high quality LCS and prevent Veterans from falling through the cracks.

United States Veterans' Utilization of Spinal Cord Injuries and Disorders Annual Evaluation Services

ObjectiveTo evaluate Veterans’ engagement in spinal cord injury and disorder (SCI/D) specialty annual evaluations (AEs). DesignCross-sectional retrospective cohort study. SettingSCI/D System of Care, United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). ParticipantsVeterans with SCI/Ds (N=14,662). InterventionsNot applicable. Main Outcome MeasuresReceiving SCI/D AEs during the study period (fiscal years [FY] 2019 and 2020). ResultsA total of 14,662 Veterans with SCI/Ds were included in the sample; 32.8% (n=4811) received 2 AEs, 28.8% (n=4219) received 1 AE, and 38.4% (n=5632) received no AEs, with an average of 0.9 AEs per Veteran over the 2-year study timeframe (range, 0-2y). Black Veterans had an 8% higher number of AEs than White Veterans after adjusting for other variables (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.12). Veterans who lived ≥240 minutes away from a VA SCI/D System of Care Center had 45% fewer AEs than Veterans who lived within 30 minutes (adjusted RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.52-0.59). Veterans with more SCI/D specialty visits had 90% more AEs than those with fewer visits (adjusted RR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.78-2.03), whereas Veterans with more outpatient visits in VA primary care had 28% fewer AEs (adjusted RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.76). Veterans with higher comorbidity scores had 9% more AEs than Veterans with lower scores (adjusted RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61-0.70). ConclusionsMore than half (62%) of Veterans received ≥1 SCI/D AE during FY19-20. Veterans living closer to a VA SCI/D System of Care Center/Hub had more engagement in SCI/D AEs. Veterans with SCI/Ds who used VA primary care outside of the SCI/D System of Care had fewer AEs. There were no major racial, age-based, or sex disparities in SCI/D AE usage. Our findings suggest the need for targeted intervention efforts to promote AE use among Veterans.

Differential effects of a social work staffing intervention on social work access among rural and highly rural Veterans: A cohort study.

To evaluate the impact on rural Veterans' access to social work services of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national program to increase social work staffing, by Veterans' rurality, race, and complex care needs. Data obtained from VA Corporate Data Warehouse, including sites that participated in the social work program between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2021. The study outcome was monthly number of Veterans per 1000 individuals with 1+ social work encounters. We used difference-in-differences to estimate the program effect on urban, rural, and highly rural Veterans. Among rural and highly rural Veterans, we stratified by race (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White) and complex care needs (homelessness, high hospitalization risk, and dementia). We defined a cohort of 740,669 Veterans (32,434,001 monthly observations) who received primary care at a participating site. Average monthly social work use was 8.7 Veterans per 1000 individuals. The program increased access by 49% (4.3 per 1000; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-6.3). Rural Veterans' social work access increased by 57% (5.0; 3.6-6.3). Among rural/highly rural Veterans, the program increased social work access for those with high hospitalization risk by 63% (24.5; 18.2-30.9), and for Veterans experiencing homelessness, 35% (13.4; 5.2-21.7). By race, the program increased access for Black Veterans by 53% (6.1; 2.1-10.2) and for Asian Veterans by 82% (5.1; 2.2-7.9). At rural VA primary care sites with social work staffing below recommended levels, Black and Asian Veterans and those experiencing homelessness and high hospitalization risk may have unmet needs warranting social work services.

59-OR: Improving Diabetic Kidney Disease Screening in a Veterans Affairs Primary Care Clinic

59-OR: Improving Diabetic Kidney Disease Screening in a Veterans Affairs Primary Care Clinic

Racial and Ethnic and Rural Variations in Access to Primary Care for Veterans Following the MISSION Act

The 2018 Veterans Affairs Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (VA MISSION) Act was implemented to increase timely access to care by expanding veterans' opportunities to receive Veterans Affairs (VA)-purchased care in the community (community care [CC]). Because health equity is a major VA priority, it is important to know whether Black and Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans experienced equitable access to primary care within the VA MISSION Act. To examine whether utilization of and wait times for primary care differed between Black and Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans in rural and urban areas after the implementation of the VA MISSION Act. This cross-sectional study used VA and CC outpatient and consult data from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse for fiscal years 2021 to 2022 (October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2022). Separate fixed-effects multivariable models were run to predict CC utilization and wait times. Each model was run twice, once comparing Black and White veterans and then comparing Hispanic and White veterans. Adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) were calculated for Black and Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans within rurality status for both outcomes. VA and CC primary care utilization as measured by primary care visits (utilization cohort); VA and CC primary care access as measured by mean wait times (access cohort). A total of 5 046 087 veterans (994 517 [19.7%] Black, 390 870 [7.7%] Hispanic, and 3 660 700 [72.6%] White individuals) used primary care from fiscal years 2021 to 2022. Utilization increased for all 3 racial and ethnicity groups, more so in CC than VA primary care. ARRs were significantly less than 1 regardless of rurality status, indicating Black and Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans were less likely to utilize CC for primary care. There were 468 246 primary care consultations during the study period. The overall mean (SD) wait time was 33.3 (32.4) days. Despite decreases in wait times over time, primary care wait times remained longer in CC than in VA. Black veterans compared with White veterans had significantly longer wait times in CC (ARRs >1) but significantly shorter wait times in VA (ARRS <1) regardless of rurality status in VA and CC. CC wait times for Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans were longer in rural areas only and in VA rural and urban areas (ARRs >1). The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that additional research should explore the determinants and implications of utilization differences among Black and Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans. Efforts to promote equitable primary care access for all veterans are needed so that policy changes can be more effective in ensuring timely access to care for all veterans.

Resident-led improvement project to screen for primary hyperaldosteronism in patients with resistant hypertension in an outpatient clinic

Clinical practice guidelines recommend screening for primary hyperaldosteronism (PH) in patients with resistant hypertension. However, screening rates are low in the outpatient setting. We sought to increase screening rates for...

Improving measurement of functional status among older adults in primary care: A pilot study.

Despite its importance for clinical care and outcomes among older adults, functional status-the ability to perform basic activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (IADLs)-is seldom routinely measured in primary care settings. The objective of this study was to pilot test a person-centered, interprofessional intervention to improve identification and management of functional impairment among older adults in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care practices. The four-component intervention included (1) an interprofessional educational session; (2) routine, standardized functional status measurement among patients aged ≥75; (3) annual screening by nurses using a standardized instrument and follow-up assessment by primary care providers; and (4) electronic tools and templates to facilitate increased identification and improved management of functional impairment. Surveys, semi-structured interviews, and electronic health record data were used to measure implementation outcomes (appropriateness, acceptability and satisfaction, feasibility, fidelity, adoption/reach, sustainability). We analyzed qualitative interviews using rapid qualitative analysis. During the study period, all 959 eligible patients were screened (100% reach), of whom 7.3% (n = 58) reported difficulty or needing help with ≥1 ADL and 11.8% (n = 113) reported difficulty or needing help with ≥1 IADL. In a chart review among a subset of 50 patients with functional impairment, 78% percent of clinician notes for the visit when screening was completed had content related to function, and 48% of patients had referrals ordered to address impairments (e.g., physical therapy) within 1 week. Clinicians highly rated the quality of the educational session and reported increased ability to measure and communicate about function. Clinicians and patients reported that the intervention was appropriate, acceptable, and feasible to complete, even during the COVID pandemic. These findings suggest that this intervention is a promising approach to improve identification and management of functional impairment for older patients in primary care. Broader implementation and evaluation of this intervention is currently underway.

Culture change and lessons learned from ten years in the VA centers of excellence in primary care education

BackgroundTeam-based care is critical to achieving health care value while maximizing patient outcomes. Few descriptions exist of graduate-level team training interventions and practice models. Experience from the multisite, decade-long Veterans Affairs (VA) Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education provides lessons for developing internal medicine training experiences in interprofessional clinical learning environments.MethodsA review of multisite demonstration project transforming traditional silo-model training to interprofessional team-based primary care. Using iterative quality improvement approaches, sites evaluated curricula with learner, faculty and staff feedback. Learner- and patient-level outcomes and organizational culture change were examined using mixed methods, within and across sites. Participants included more than 1600 internal medicine, nurse practitioner, nursing, pharmacy, psychology, social work and physical therapy trainees. This took place in seven academic university-affiliated VA primary care clinics with patient centered medical home designResultsEach site developed innovative design and curricula using common competencies of shared decision making, sustained relationships, performance improvement and interprofessional collaboration. Educational strategies included integrated didactics, workplace collaboration and reflection. Sites shared implementation best practices and outcomes. Cross-site evaluations of the impacts of these educational strategies indicated improvements in trainee clinical knowledge, team-based approaches to care and interest in primary care careers. Improved patient outcomes were seen in the quality of chronic disease management, reduction in polypharmacy, and reduced emergency department and hospitalizations. Evaluations of the culture of training environments demonstrated incorporation and persistence of interprofessional learning and collaboration.ConclusionsAligning education and practice goals with cross-site collaboration created a robust interprofessional learning environment. Improved trainee/staff satisfaction and better patient care metrics supports use of this model to transform ambulatory care training.Trial registrationThis evaluation was categorized as an operation improvement activity by the Office of Academic Affairs based on Veterans Health Administration Handbook 1058.05, in which information generated is used for business operations and quality improvement (Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations Part 16 (38 CFR 16.102(l)). The overall project was subject to administrative oversight rather Human Subjects Institutional Review Board, as such informed consent was waived as part of the project implementation and evaluation.

PATIENT PRIORITIES CARE FOR VETERANS

Abstract People receiving care in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system are older, have greater socioeconomic disadvantage, and more chronic conditions than those receiving healthcare outside of VA. PPC is well-suited for older adults with multiple chronic conditions and aligns with the VA’s Whole Health movement. A small VA PPC pilot study demonstrated that those receiving PPC compared to usual care had fewer medications added and more home and community services aligned with priorities. VA primary care is a cornerstone and hub for veteran care utilizing a team-based approach. A two-site randomized controlled trial exploring the implementation of PPC in VA primary care is currently recruiting veterans. The early phase of the project involved semi-structured formative assessment interviews with key stakeholders to obtain feedback and perspectives on PPC implementation in VA primary care. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Concerns elicited were time constraints, follow up and documentation of changes in priorities over time, managing patient expectation, communication between primary care and specialty care, as well as how PPC would impact quality metrics. In response to these findings, the patient priorities note template was shortened and streamlined, and the study communications workflow was adapted to align with clinician preferences. Succinct templated language for care alignment was crafted and shared with study providers. Education for clinicians highlighted ways in which priorities could be used to optimize communication. Study procedures were added to identify quality metric exclusions. The study will explore how PPC impacts veteran care and experience.

The impact of screening positive for hazardous alcohol use on the diagnostic accuracy of the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 among veterans.

The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) is a widely used self-report measure of PTSD symptoms that has demonstrated strong psychometric properties across settings and samples. Co-occurring hazardous alcohol use and PTSD are prevalent among veterans, and the effects of alcohol use may impact the performance of the PCL-5. However, this possibility is untested. In this study, we evaluated the PCL-5 diagnostic accuracy for veterans who did and did not screen positive for hazardous alcohol use according to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C). Participants were 385 veterans recruited from Veterans Affairs primary care clinics. Results indicated that PCL-5 performance, AUC = .904, 95% CI [.870, .937], did not differ as a product of hazardous alcohol use. PCL-5 diagnostic utility was comparably high for veterans with, AUC = .904; 95% CI [.846, .962], and without, AUC = .904 95% CI [.861, .946], positive AUDIT-C screens. Although optimally efficient cutoff scores for veterans who screened positive were higher (i.e., 34-36) than for those with negative screens (i.e., 30), neither were significantly different from the overall PCL-5 cutoff score (i.e., 32), suggesting that neither veterans with nor without positive AUDIT-C screens require differential PCL-5 cutoff scores. The results do underscore the importance of using PCL-5 cutoff scores in concert with clinical judgment when establishing a provisional PTSD diagnosis and highlight the need for additional study of the impact of comorbidities on PCL-5 diagnostic accuracy and cutoff scores.

Implementation of VA care coordination program to improve transitional care for veterans post-non-VA hospital discharge: an incremental cost analysis.

The Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System Community Hospital Transitions Program (CHTP) was implemented as a nurse-led intervention to reduce barriers that patients experience when transitioning from community hospitals to VA primary care settings. A previous analysis indicated that veterans who enrolled in CHTP received timely follow-up care and communications that improved care coordination, but did not examine cost implications for the VA. A budget impact analysis used the VA (payer) perspective. CHTP implementation team members and study records identified key resources required to initially implement and run the CHTP. Statistical analysis of program participants and matched controls at two study sites was used to estimate incremental VA primary care costs per veteran. Using combined program implementation, operations, and healthcare cost estimates to guide key model assumptions, overall CHTP costs were estimated for a 5-year time horizon, including a discount rate of 3%, annual inflation of 2.5%, and a sensitivity analysis that considered two options for staffing the program at VA Medical Center (VAMC) sites. Implementation at two VAMCs required 3 months, including central program support and site-level onboarding, with costs of $34,094 (range: $25,355-$51,602), which included direct and indirect resource costs of personnel time, materials, space, and equipment. Subsequent annual costs to run the program at each site depended heavily on the staffing mix and caseload of veterans, with a baseline estimate of $193,802 to $264,868. Patients enrolled in CHTP had post-hospitalization VA primary care costs that were higher than matched controls. Over 5 years, CHTP sites staffed to serve 25-30 veterans per full-time equivalent transition team member per month had an estimated budget impact of $625 per veteran served if the transitional team included a medical social worker to support veterans with more social behavioral needs and less complex medical cases or $815 per veteran if nurses served all cases. Evidence-based care coordination programs that support patients' return to VA primary care after a community hospital stay are feasible to implement and run. Further, flexibility in staffing this type of program is increasingly relevant as the VA and other healthcare systems consider methods to reduce provider burnout, optimize staffing, reduce costs, and address other staffing challenges while improving patient care.

Depression care quality among patients with solid tumor cancers detected to have depression in Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics.

Patients with cancer, especially advanced cancer, experience depression at high rates. We aimed to evaluate the quality of depression care received by patients with solid tumor cancer and advanced solid tumor cancer in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients seen in 82 VA primary care clinics who newly screened positive for depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2). Outcomes included timely follow-up within 84 or 180 days (3+ mental health specialty, 3+ psychotherapy, or 3+ primary care visits with depression diagnosis codes) and minimum treatment within 1 year (60+ days antidepressants prescribed, 4+ mental health specialty visits, or 3+ psychotherapy visits). 608,042 individuals were seen in VA primary care clinics during this period; 49,839 patients (8.2%) had solid tumor cancer and 9,278 (1.5%) had advanced or poor-prognosis solid tumor cancer. For 686 observations of patients with cancer and new depression, rates of appropriate follow-up were 22.3% within 84 days and 38.2% within 180 days. For 73 observations of patients with advanced or poor-prognosis cancer and new depression, rates of appropriate follow-up were 21.9% within 84 days and 34.3% within 180 days. Rates of minimum treatment within 1 year were 68.4% and 64.4% for patients with cancer and patients with advanced or poor-prognosis cancer, respectively. Quality of timely depression management is low in patients with solid tumor cancers. Even in health systems with well-integrated mental health services, care gaps remain for patients with cancer and depression. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Automated Opt-Out vs Opt-In Patient Outreach Strategies for Breast Cancer Screening

Optimal strategies for population-based outreach for breast cancer screening remain unknown. To evaluate the effect on breast cancer screening of an opt-out automatic mammography referral strategy compared with an opt-in automated telephone message strategy. This pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 2022 to January 2023 at a single Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Participants were female veterans aged 45 to 75 years who were eligible for breast cancer screening and enrolled in VA primary care. Veterans were randomized 1:1 to receive either an automatic mammography referral (opt-out arm) or an automated telephone call with an option for mammography referral (opt-in arm). The primary outcome was completed mammography 100 days after outreach. Secondary outcomes were scheduled or completed mammography by 100 days after outreach and referrals canceled if mammography was not scheduled within 90 days. Both intention-to-treat analyses and a restricted analysis were conducted. The restricted analysis excluded veterans who were unable to be reached by telephone (eg, a nonworking number) or who were found to be ineligible after randomization (eg, medical record documentation of recent mammography). Of 883 veterans due for mammography (mean [SD] age, 59.13 [8.24] years; 656 [74.3%] had received prior mammography), 442 were randomized to the opt-in group and 441 to the opt-out group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of completed mammography at 100 days between the opt-out and opt-in groups (67 [15.2%] vs 66 [14.9%]; P = .90) or the secondary outcome of completed or scheduled mammography (84 [19%] vs 106 [24.0%]; P = .07). A higher number of referrals were canceled in the opt-out group compared with the opt-in group (104 [23.6%] vs 24 [5.4%]; P < .001). The restricted analysis demonstrated similar results except more veterans completed or scheduled mammography within 100 days in the opt-out group compared with the opt-in group (102 of 388 [26.3%] vs 80 of 415 [19.3%]; P = .02). In this randomized clinical trial, an opt-out population-based breast cancer screening outreach approach compared with an opt-in approach did not result in a significant difference in mammography completion but did lead to substantially more canceled mammography referrals, increasing staff burden. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05313737.

A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial of Primary Care Treatment Integrating Motivation and Exposure Treatment (PC-TIME) in Veterans With PTSD and Harmful Alcohol Use

Individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) often engage in harmful alcohol use. These co-occurring conditions are associated with negative health consequences and disability. PTSD and harmful drinking are typically experienced as closely related—thus treatments that target both simultaneously are preferred by patients. Many individuals with PTSD and harmful alcohol use receive primary care services but encounter treatment barriers in engaging in specialty mental health and substance use services. A pilot randomized controlled trial of a brief integrated treatment for PTSD and harmful drinking versus primary care treatment as usual (PC-TAU) took place in three U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. The intervention (primary care treatment integrating motivation and exposure [PC-TIME]) combines motivational interviewing to reduce alcohol use and brief prolonged exposure for PTSD delivered over five brief sessions. Participants (N = 63) were veterans with PTSD and harmful drinking. Multilevel growth curve modeling examined changes in drinking (average number of drinks per drinking day and percentage of heavy drinking days) and self-reported PTSD severity at baseline, 8, 14, and 20 weeks. Participants reported high satisfaction with PC-TIME and 70% (n = 23) completed treatment. As hypothesized, a significantly steeper decrease in self-reported PTSD severity and heavy drinking was evident for participants randomized to PC-TIME compared with PC-TAU. Contrary to expectations, no significant posttreatment differences in PTSD diagnoses were observed. PC-TIME participants were less likely to exceed National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA) guidelines for harmful alcohol use posttreatment compared with PC-TAU participants. PC-TIME is a promising brief, primary care-based treatment for individuals with co-occurring PTSD and harmful alcohol use. A full-scale randomized clinical trial is needed to fully test its effectiveness.

A Centralized EHR-Based Model for the Recruitment of Rural and Lower Socioeconomic Participants in Pragmatic Trials

Participant diversity is important for reducing study bias and increasing generalizability of comparative effectiveness research. Demonstrate the operational efficiency of a centralized electronic health record (EHR)-based model for recruiting difficult-to-reach participants in a pragmatic trial. This comparative effectiveness study was a secondary analysis of Diuretic Comparison Project, a randomized clinical trial conducted between 2016 and 2022 (mean [SD] follow-up, 2.4 [1.4] years) comparing 2 commonly prescribed antihypertensives, which used an EHR-based recruitment model. Electronic study workflows, in tandem with routine clinical practice, were adapted by 72 Veteran Affairs (VA) primary care networks. Data were analyzed from August to December 2022. Measures reflecting recruitment capacity (monthly rate), operational efficiency (median time for completion of electronic procedures), and geographic reach (percentage of patients recruited from rural areas) were examined. A total of 13 523 patients with hypertension (mean [SD] age, 72 [5.4] years; 13 092 male [96.8%]) were recruited from 537 outpatient clinics. Approximately 205 patients were randomized per month and a median of 35 days (Q1-Q3, 23-80 days) was needed to complete electronic recruitment. The annual income was below the national median for 69% of the cohort. Patients from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia were included and 45% resided in rural areas. In this secondary analysis of a multicenter pragmatic trial, a centralized EHR-based recruitment model was associated with improved participation from underrepresented groups. These participants often are difficult to reach, with their exclusion potentially biasing trial results; eliminating in-person study visits and local site involvement can minimize barriers for the recruitment of patients from rural and lower socioeconomic areas. The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02185417.

‘She thought the same way I that I thought:’ a qualitative study of patient-provider concordance among Gulf War Veterans with Gulf War Illness

Objective: Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), such as chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and Gulf War Illness (GWI), are difficult to treat. Concordance—shared understanding between patient and provider about illness causes, course, and treatment—is an essential component of high-quality care for people with MUS. This qualitative paper focuses on the experiences of United States military Veterans living with GWI who have endured unique healthcare challenges. Methods & Measures: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 31 Veterans with GWI to explore factors that contribute to and detract from concordance with their Veteran Affairs (VA) healthcare providers. In addition to being seen by VA primary care, over half of participants also sought care at a War Related Illness and Injury Study Center, which specializes in post-deployment health. Deductive and inductive codes were used to organize the data, and themes were identified through iterative review of coded data. Results: Major themes associated with patient-provider concordance included validation of illness experiences, perceived provider expertise in GWI/MUS, and trust in providers. Invalidation, low provider expertise, and distrust detracted from concordance. Conclusion: These findings suggest providers can foster concordance with MUS patients by legitimizing patients’ experiences, communicating knowledge about MUS, and establishing trust.

Does screening for PTSD lead to VA mental health care? Identifying the spectrum of initial VA screening actions.

Despite the active posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening program in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics and the availability of empirically supported treatments for PTSD at VA, many veterans for whom screening suggests treatment may be indicated do not gain access to VA-based mental health care. To determine where we may be losing veterans to follow-up, we need to begin by identifying the initial action taken in response to a positive PTSD screen in primary care. Using VA administrative data and chart review, we identified the spectrum of initial actions taken after veterans screened positive for PTSD in VA primary care clinics nationwide between October 2017 and September 2018 (N = 41,570). We collapsed actions into those that could lead to VA-based mental health care (e.g., consult placed to a VA mental health clinic) versus not (e.g., veteran declined care), and then examined the association between these categories of actions and contextual- and individual-level variables. More than 61% of veterans with positive PTSD screens had evidence that an initial action toward VA-based mental health care was taken. Urban-dwelling and female veterans were significantly more likely to have evidence of these initial actions, whereas White and Vietnam-era veterans were significantly less likely to have this evidence. Our findings suggest that most veterans screening positive for PTSD in VA primary care clinics have evidence of initial actions taken toward VA-based mental health care; however, a substantial minority do not, making them unlikely to receive follow-up care. Findings highlight the potential benefit of targeted primary care-based access interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Learning from national implementation of the Veterans Affairs Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program for improving access to care: protocol for a six year evaluation

BackgroundThe Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program aims to improve patient access to care by implementing time-limited, regionally based primary or mental health staffing support to cover local staffing vacancies. VA’s Office of Primary Care (OPC) designed CRH to support more than 1000 geographically disparate VA outpatient sites, many of which are in rural areas, by providing virtual contingency clinical staffing for sites experiencing primary care and mental health staffing deficits. The subsequently funded CRH evaluation, carried out by the VA Primary Care Analytics Team (PCAT), partnered with CRH program leaders and evaluation stakeholders to develop a protocol for a six-year CRH evaluation.The objectives for developing the CRH evaluation protocol were to prospectively: 1) identify the outcomes CRH aimed to achieve, and the key program elements designed to achieve them; 2) specify evaluation designs and data collection approaches for assessing CRH progress and success; and 3) guide the activities of five geographically dispersed evaluation teams.MethodsThe protocol documents a multi-method CRH program evaluation design with qualitative and quantitative elements. The evaluation’s overall goal is to assess CRH’s return on investment to the VA and Veterans at six years through synthesis of findings on program effectiveness. The evaluation includes both observational and quasi-experimental elements reflecting impacts at the national, regional, outpatient site, and patient levels. The protocol is based on program evaluation theory, implementation science frameworks, literature on contingency staffing, and iterative review and revision by both research and clinical operations partners.DiscussionHealth systems increasingly seek to use data to guide management and decision-making for newly implemented clinical programs and policies. Approaches for planning evaluations to accomplish this goal, however, are not well-established. By publishing the protocol, we aim to increase the validity and usefulness of subsequent evaluation findings. We also aim to provide an example of a program evaluation protocol developed within a learning health systems partnership.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis and Management in 2021: A National Veterans Affairs Quality Improvement Project

The coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic profoundly disrupted preventative health care services including cancer screening. As the largest provider of cirrhosis care in the United States, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Gastroenterology and Hepatology Program aimed to assess factors associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) stage at diagnosis, treatment, and survival. Veterans with a new diagnosis of HCC in 2021 were identified from electronic health records (N= 2306). Structured medical record extraction was performed by expert reviewers in a 10% random subsample of Veterans with new HCC diagnoses. Factors associated with stage at diagnosis, receipt of treatment, and survival were assessed using multivariable models. Among 199 patients with confirmed HCC, the average age was 71 years and most (72%) had underlying cirrhosis. More than half (54%) were at an early stage (T1 or T2) at diagnosis. Less-advanced liver disease, number of imaging tests adequate for HCC screening, HCC diagnosis in the VA, and receipt of VA primary care were associated significantly with early stage diagnosis. HCC-directed treatments were administered to 145 (73%) patients after a median of 37 days (interquartile range, 19-54 d) from diagnosis, including 70 (35%) patients who received potentially curative treatments. Factors associated with potentially curative (vs no) treatments included HCC screening, early stage at diagnosis, and better performance status. Having fewer comorbidities and better performance status were associated significantly with noncurative (vs no) treatment. Early stage diagnosis, diagnosis in the VA system, and receipt of curative treatment were associated significantly with survival. These results highlight the importance of HCC screening and engagement in care for HCC diagnosis, treatment, and survival while demonstrating the feasibility of developing a national quality improvement agenda for HCC screening, diagnosis, and treatment.