Search

Background: The Maintaining Internal Systems and Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018 was created in response to reports of prolonged wait times for veterans accessing health care within the Veterans Affairs (VA) system. In Michigan, the MISSION Act Community Care Program led to an increased number of veterans receiving specialty care outside the VA system, in part due to the complicated process of coordinating specialty care within the VA system. From 2018 to 2020, the percentage of veterans referred to the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (AA) for specialty care from its two referring facilities, Battle Creek VA Medical Center (BC) and Saginaw VA Healthcare System (SAG), decreased from 54.4 to 27%., Objective: Improve the number of Michigan veterans choosing VA specialty care., Intervention: In 2021, three VA facilities in Michigan (AA, BC, and SAG) created a market-level referral system named the Michigan Market Referral Initiative (MMRCI). This unique approach used a centralized nurse-driven team to manage specialty referrals, working directly with the veteran to explore both VA and community care (CC) options., Main Measures: Referrals triaged and acceptance rates for VA care were tracked. The localized Standard Episode of Care model was used to estimate cost savings. Post-intervention AA patient wait times were compared to local CC wait times., Key Results: In the 14 months after implementation of the MMRCI, the rate of veteran retention increased by 32.4%. The estimated dollars retained within the VA by MMRCI efforts was $24,105,251 as of 7/1/2022. Post-intervention AA wait times were superior to community care except in 3 specialties., Conclusions: This multifacility effort is an example of a highly coordinated, veteran-centered collaboration that has led to successful retention of veterans within the VA system with resultant large-scale cost avoidance and comparable clinic wait times. Focusing on central care coordination and veteran engagement in the referral process are keys to its success, along with leveraging existing referral patterns between nearby VA facilities. This model could be extrapolated to other VA markets throughout the country where similar relationships exist., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, it is critical to understand characteristics that have allowed US healthcare systems, including the Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-federal hospitals, to mount an effective response in the setting of limited resources and unpredictable clinical demands generated by this system shock., Objective: To compare the impact of and response to resource shortages to both VA and non-federal healthcare systems during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: Cross-sectional national survey administered April 2021 through May 2022., Participants: Lead infection preventionists from VA and non-federal hospitals across the US., Main Measures: Surveys collected hospital demographic factors along with 11 questions aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the hospital's COVID response., Key Results: The response rate was 56% (71/127) from VA and 47% (415/881) from non-federal hospitals. Compared to VA hospitals, non-federal hospitals had a larger average number of acute care (214 vs. 103 beds, p<.001) and intensive care unit (24 vs. 16, p<.001) beds. VA hospitals were more likely to report no shortages of personal protective equipment or medical supplies during the pandemic (17% vs. 9%, p=.03) and more frequently opened new units to care specifically for COVID patients (71% vs. 49%, p<.001) compared with non-federal hospitals. Non-federal hospitals more frequently experienced increased loss of staff due to resignations (76% vs. 53%, p=.001) and financial hardships stemming from the pandemic (58% vs. 7%, p<0.001)., Conclusions: In our survey-based national study, lead infection preventionists noted several distinct advantages in VA versus non-federal hospitals in their ability to expand bed capacity, retain staff, mitigate supply shortages, and avoid financial hardship. While these benefits appear to be inherent to the VA's structure, non-federal hospitals can adapt their infrastructure to better weather future system shocks., (© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Objective: The seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG antibody was evaluated among employees of a Veterans Affairs healthcare system to assess potential risk factors for transmission and infection., Methods: All employees were invited to participate in a questionnaire and serological survey to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 as part of a facility-wide quality improvement and infection prevention initiative regardless of clinical or nonclinical duties. The initiative was conducted from June 8 to July 8, 2020., Results: Of the 2,900 employees, 51% participated in the study, revealing a positive SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 4.9% (72 of 1,476; 95% CI, 3.8%-6.1%). There were no statistically significant differences in the presence of antibody based on gender, age, frontline worker status, job title, performance of aerosol-generating procedures, or exposure to known patients with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) within the hospital. Employees who reported exposure to a known COVID-19 case outside work had a significantly higher seroprevalence at 14.8% (23 of 155) compared to those who did not 3.7% (48 of 1,296; OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.67-7.68; P < .0001). Notably, 29% of seropositive employees reported no history of symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 infection., Conclusions: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among employees was not significantly different among those who provided direct patient care and those who did not, suggesting that facility-wide infection control measures were effective. Employees who reported direct personal contact with COVID-19-positive persons outside work were more likely to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Employee exposure to SARS-CoV-2 outside work may introduce infection into hospitals.

Background: Surgical patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk of perioperative complications. In this study, we sought to quantify the benefit of avoiding general anesthesia in this patient population., Methods: Data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005-2010) were used for this review. Patients who met the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program definition for COPD and underwent surgery under general, spinal, epidural, or peripheral nerve block anesthesia were included in this study. For each primary current procedural terminology code with ≥ 1 general and ≥ 1 regional (spinal, epidural, or peripheral nerve block) anesthetic, regional patients were propensity score--matched to general anesthetic patients. Propensity scoring was calculated using all available demographic and comorbidity data. This match yielded 2644 patients who received regional anesthesia and 2644 matched general anesthetic patients. These groups were compared for morbidity and mortality., Results: Groups were well matched on demographics, comorbidities, and type of surgery. Compared with matched patients who received regional anesthesia, patients who received general anesthesia had a higher incidence of postoperative pneumonia (3.3% vs 2.3%, P = 0.0384, absolute difference with 95% confidence interval = 1.0% [0.09, 1.88]), prolonged ventilator dependence (2.1% vs 0.9%, P = 0.0008, difference = 1.2% [0.51, 1.84]), and unplanned postoperative intubation (2.6% vs 1.8%, P = 0.0487, difference = 0.8% [0.04, 1.62]). Composite morbidity was 15.4% in the general group versus 12.6% (P = 0.0038, difference = 2.8% [0.93, 4.67]). Composite morbidity not including pulmonary complications was 13.0% in the general group versus 11.1% (P = 0.0312, difference = 1.9% [0.21, 3.72]). Thirty-day mortality was similar (2.7% vs 3.0%, P = 0.6788, difference = 0.3% [-1.12, 0.67]). As a test for validity, we found a positive association between pulmonary end points because patients with 1 pulmonary complication were significantly more likely to have additional pulmonary complications., Conclusions: The use of regional anesthesia in patients with COPD is associated with lower incidences of composite morbidity, pneumonia, prolonged ventilator dependence, and unplanned postoperative intubation.