Search

PURPOSE Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS. METHODS We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making. RESULTS Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures. CONCLUSIONS Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations. Key words: lung cancer; lung cancer screening; qualitative methods: key informant/depth interviewing; cancer: screening; chronic care: comorbidity/multimorbidity; primary care issues: patient-centered care, INTRODUCTION Achieving mortality reduction with lung cancer screening (LCS) (1,2) while minimizing iatrogenic harm requires optimizing patient selection: screening people likely to benefit from early detection and not screening those [...]

BackgroundThe Veterans Health Administration (VA) is undergoing a transformation in how healthcare is organized and provided. This transformation to a Whole Health System of Care encompasses the integration of complementary and integrative health services, education, and Whole Health coaching to develop Veterans' self-care skills. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these services were provided via telehealth (tele-WH).ObjectiveWe sought to understand Veteran and provider perspectives on how tele-WH impacts Veteran engagement in Whole Health-aligned services and the impact on their well-being.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 51 providers who delivered tele-WH at 10 VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) and 19 Veterans receiving tele-WH at 6 VAMCs. Participants were asked about their experiences with tele-WH, what they perceived to be the impact of tele-WH on Veterans, and their preferences moving forward. Interviews were transcribed, and a content analysis was performed using a rapid approach.ResultsWe identified 3 major themes that describe the perceived impact of tele-WH on Veterans. These include: (1) increased use of Whole Health-aligned services; (2) deeper engagement with Whole-Health aligned services; and (3) improvements in social, psychological, and physical well-being.ConclusionTele-WH is perceived to be a strong complement to in-person services and is a promising mechanism for improving engagement with Whole Health-aligned services and promoting Veteran well-being. Future research is needed to measure outcomes identified in this study and to support more equitable access to telehealth for all.

Background: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) recommends lung cancer screening (LCS), including shared decision making between clinicians and veteran patients. We sought to characterize 1) veteran conceptualization of lung cancer risk and 2) veteran and clinician accounts of shared decision-making discussions about LCS to assess whether they reflect veteran concerns. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews at 6 VA sites, with 48 clinicians and 34 veterans offered LCS in the previous 6 mo. We thematically analyzed transcripts, focusing on lung cancer risk perceptions, LCS decision making, and patient-clinician conversations. Results: Three themes emerged. 1) Veterans' lung cancer risk conceptualizations incorporated smoking, occupational hazards, and family history, whereas clinicians focused on smoking as the primary risk factor. 2) Veterans' risk perceptions were influenced by symptoms, recency of exposures, and anecdotes about smoking, cancer, and lung disease, leading some veterans to believe other risk factors outweighed smoking in increasing lung cancer risk. 3) Both veterans and clinicians described LCS conversations centered on smoking, with little mention of other risks. Limitations: Our findings may not reflect non-VA settings; for example, veterans may be more concerned about airborne hazards. Conclusions: While airborne hazards strongly influenced veterans' lung cancer risk conceptualizations, clinicians seldom addressed this risk factor during LCS shared decision making, instead focusing on smoking. Implications: In 2022, the US Congress highlighted the link between military toxic exposures and lung cancer risk, requiring VA clinicians to discuss these exposures and conferring automatic VA benefits to exposed veterans with cancer. There is a time-sensitive need for tools to support VA clinicians in discussing military hazards as a lung cancer risk factor, which may result in more engaging, less stigmatizing LCS shared decision-making conversations. Highlights: Veterans' conceptualizations of their lung cancer risk were multifactorial and sometimes ranked exposure to occupational airborne hazards and family history above smoking in increasing lung cancer risk. However, patient-clinician lung cancer screening (LCS) conversations were typically brief and focused on smoking, which could stigmatize patients and failed to engage veterans in discussing what mattered most to them in thinking about their lung cancer risk. These findings are of heightened importance in light of the 2022 Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, which requires VA clinicians to discuss toxic military exposures and their relationship to lung cancer and other health conditions. Tools that help clinicians assess and incorporate multiple risk factors into discussions about lung cancer may better address patients' concerns and beliefs and lead to more engaging, less stigmatizing shared decision-making conversations about LCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic pain is highly prevalent in US military Veterans, and pain interdisciplinary teams (IDTs) are the gold standard in pain care. There is no standard or guidance for how best to develop and implement pain interdisciplinary teams within complex health care systems. Objectives: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to evaluate the effectiveness of the standard 9-step Lean 6 Sigma (LSS) methodology in redesigning a pre-existing VA outpatient pain clinic solely offering interventional pain services into an efficient, sustainable pain IDT program. Methods: The initial evaluation process at a VA Medical Center that primarily serves rural Veterans was redesigned with the a priori goal of developing an efficient, sustainable IDT program that decreased driving days (ie, in-person appointments) required for a comprehensive initial pain evaluation, decreased number of consults required for initial pain evaluations, increased the number of consults to Whole Health services, and increased compliance with policies and standards. Feedback from administrators, clinicians, and Veterans was used to identify inefficiencies then iteratively design, test, and finalize a redesigned service called the PREVAIL Interdisciplinary Team Track (PREVAIL IDT Track). Baseline data was collected for 1 year followed by sustainment data for 14 months. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: PREVAIL IDT Track decreased the number of in-person appointments from 5 to 2, decreased consults required for evaluations from 5 to 1, increased the number of unique consults to Whole Health education classes, and made the VA fully compliant with policies and standards. To date, 486 Veterans have participated in the redesigned program, including 167 graduates and 212 current enrollees in this sustained clinical program. Conclusion: The success of PREVAIL IDT Track suggests that LSS may be a promising method for redesigning sustainable pain IDTs in VA that improve efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Data Sources and Study Setting Study Design and Data Collection Methods Principal Findings Conclusions 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patient-centred care is now ubiquitous in health services research, and healthcare systems are moving ahead with patient-centred care implementation. Yet, little is known about how healthcare employees, charged with implementing patient-centred care, conceptualize what they are implementing. Objective To examine how hospital employees conceptualize patient-centred care. Research Design We conducted qualitative interviews about patient-centred care during site four visits, from January to April 2013. Subjects We interviewed 107 employees, including leadership, middle managers, front line providers and staff at four US Veteran Health Administration ( VHA) medical centres leading VHA's patient-centred care transformation. Measures Data were analysed using grounded thematic analysis. Findings were then mapped to established patient-centred care constructs identified in the literature: taking a biopsychosocial perspective; viewing the patient-as-person; sharing power and responsibility; establishing a therapeutic alliance; and viewing the doctor-as-person. Results We identified three distinct conceptualizations: (i) those that were well aligned with established patient-centred care constructs surrounding the clinical encounter; (ii) others that extended conceptualizations of patient-centred care into the organizational culture, encompassing the entire patient-experience; and (iii) still others that were poorly aligned with patient-centred care constructs, reflecting more traditional patient care practices. Conclusions Patient-centred care ideals have permeated into healthcare systems. Additionally, patient-centred care has been expanded to encompass a cultural shift in care delivery, beginning with patients' experiences entering a facility. However, some healthcare employees, namely leadership, see patient-centred care so broadly, it encompasses on-going hospital initiatives, while others consider patient-centred care as inherent to specific positions. These latter conceptualizations risk undermining patient-centred care implementation by limiting transformational initiatives to specific providers or simply repackaging existing programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]