Search

Background: Primary care practices are responding to calls to incorporate patients' social risk factors, such as housing, food, and economic insecurity, into clinical care. Healthcare likely relies on the expertise and resources of community-based organizations to improve patients' social conditions, yet little is known about the referral process.Objective: To characterize referrals to community-based organizations by primary care practices.Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with healthcare administrators responsible for social care efforts in their organization.Participants: Administrators at 50 diverse US healthcare organizations with efforts to address patients' social risks.Main Measures: Approaches used in primary care to implement social needs referral to community-based organizations.Results: Interviewed administrators reported that social needs referrals were an essential element in their social care activities. Administrators described the ideal referral programs as placing limited burden on care teams, providing patients with customized referrals, and facilitating closed-loop referrals. We identified three key challenges organizations experience when trying to implement the ideal referrals program: (1) developing and maintaining resources lists; (2) aligning referrals with patient needs; and (3) measuring the efficacy of referrals. Collectively, these challenges led to organizations relying on staff to manually develop and update resource lists and, in most cases, provide patients with generic referrals. Administrators not only hoped that referral platforms may help overcome some of these barriers, but also reported implementation challenges with platforms including inconsistent buy-in and use across staff; integration with electronic health records; management and prioritization of resources; and alignment with other organizations in their market.Conclusion and Relevance: Referrals to community-based organizations were used in primary care to improve patients' social conditions, but despite strong motivations, interviewees reported challenges providing tailored and up-to-date information to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Suicide rates have increased among women Veterans, with increased use of firearms as the method. Addressing suicide risk in this population requires understanding the prevalence and correlates of firearm access in healthcare settings frequented by women Veterans.Objectives: Characterize the prevalence and correlates of firearm ownership and storage practices among women Veterans using Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reproductive healthcare (RHC) services.Design: Cross-sectional national survey conducted in 2018-2019 (17.9% response rate).Participants: Post-9/11 women Veterans using RHC (n=350).Main Measures: VA Military Sexual Trauma Screen, PTSD Checklist for DSM-5, Hurt/Insult/Threaten/Scream, Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale screener, self-reported firearm access.Key Results: 38.0% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 32.9, 43.3) of participants reported personally owning firearms, and 38.9% (95% CI: 33.7, 44.2) reported other household members owned firearms. Among those with firearms in or around their homes, 17.8% (95% CI: 12.3, 24.4) and 21.9% (95% CI: 15.9, 28.9) reported all were unsafely stored (loaded or unlocked, respectively). Women who experienced recent intimate partner violence were less likely to report personally owning firearms (adjusted prevalence ratio [APR]=0.75; 95% CI: 0.57, 0.996). Those who experienced military sexual harassment (APR=1.46; 95% CI=1.09, 1.96), were married (APR=1.74; 95% CI: 1.33, 2.27), or lived with other adult(s) (APR=6.26; 95% CI: 2.87, 13.63) were more likely to report having household firearms owned by someone else. Storing firearms loaded was more prevalent among women with lifetime (APR=1.47; 95% CI=1.03, 2.08) or past-month (APR=1.69; 95% CI=1.15, 2.48) suicidal ideation and less likely among those with other adult(s) in the home (unadjusted PR=0.62; 95% CI=0.43, 0.91). Those with parenting responsibilities (APR=0.61; 95% CI=0.38, 0.97) were less likely to store firearms unlocked.Conclusions: Firearm access is prevalent among post-9/11 women Veterans using VA RHC. Interpersonal factors may be important determinants of firearm access in this population. Safe firearm storage initiatives are needed among women Veterans using RHC, particularly for those with suicidal ideation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) is the largest integrated health system in the US and provides access to comprehensive primary care. Women Veterans are the fastest growing segment of new VA users, yet little is known about the characteristics of those who routinely access VA primary care in general or by age group.Objective: Describe healthcare needs, utilization, and preferences of women Veterans who routinely use VA primary care.Participants: 1,391 women Veterans with 3+ primary care visits within the previous year in 12 VA medical centers (including General Primary Care Clinics, General Primary Care Clinics with designated space for women, and Comprehensive Women's Health Centers) in nine states.Methods: Cross-sectional survey (45% response rate) of sociodemographic characteristics, health status (including chronic disease, mental health, pain, and trauma exposure), utilization, care preferences, and satisfaction. Select utilization data were extracted from administrative data. Analyses were weighted to the population of routine users and adjusted for non-response in total and by age group.Key Results: While 43% had health coverage only through VA, 62% received all primary care in VA. In the prior year, 56% used VA mental healthcare and 78% used VA specialty care. Common physical health issues included hypertension (42%), elevated cholesterol (39%), pain (35%), and diabetes (16%). Many screened positive for PTSD (41%), anxiety (32%), and depression (27%). Chronic physical and mental health burdens varied by age. Two-thirds (62%) had experienced military sexual trauma. Respondents reported satisfaction with VA women's healthcare and preference for female providers.Conclusions: Women Veterans who routinely utilize VA primary care have significant multimorbid physical and mental health conditions and trauma histories. Meeting women Veterans' needs across the lifespan will require continued investment in woman-centered primary care, including integrated mental healthcare and emphasis on trauma-informed, age-specific care, guided by women's provider preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A culture of improvement is an important feature of high-quality health care systems. However, health care teams often need support to translate quality improvement (QI) activities into practice. One method of support is consultation from a QI coach. The literature suggests that coaching interventions have a positive impact on clinical outcomes. However, the impact of coaching on specific process outcomes, like adoption of clinical care activities, is unknown. Identifying the process outcomes for which QI coaching is most effective could provide specific guidance on when to employ this strategy.Methods: We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021. Studies that addressed the effects of QI coaching on process of care outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.Results: We identified 1983 articles, of which 23 cluster-randomized trials met eligibility criteria. All but two took place in a primary care setting. Overall, interventions typically targeted multiple simultaneous processes of care activities. We found that coaching probably has a beneficial effect on composite process of care outcomes (n = 9) and ordering of labs and vital signs (n = 6), and possibly has a beneficial effect on changes in organizational process of care (n = 5), appropriate documentation (n = 5), and delivery of appropriate counseling (n = 3). We did not perform meta-analyses because of conceptual heterogeneity around intervention design and outcomes; rather, we synthesized the data narratively. Due to imprecision, inconsistency, and high risk of bias of the included studies, we judged the certainty of these results as low or very low.Conclusion: QI coaching interventions may affect certain processes of care activities such as ordering of labs and vital signs. Future research that advances the identification of when QI coaching is most beneficial for health care teams seeking to implement improvement processes in pursuit of high-quality care will support efficient use of QI resources.Protocol Registration: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020165069). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]