Search

Randomized controlled trials to improve care for complex, high-need, high-cost patients have not consistently demonstrated a relative decrease in acute care utilization or cost savings. However, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been able to glean lessons from these trials and generate realistic expectations for success. Lessons include the following: (1) combining population management tools (e.g., risk scores) and clinician judgment is more effective than either alone to identify the patients best suited for intensive management; (2) treatment adherence and engagement may contribute more to preventable emergency department visits and hospitalizations than care coordination; and (3) efforts should focus on assessing for and treating those risk factors that are most amenable to intervention. Because it is unlikely that cost savings can fund add-on intensive management programs, the VHA Office of Primary Care plans to incorporate those intensive management practices that are feasible into existing patient-centered medical homes as a high reliability organization.

Despite longstanding efforts to improve health care quality for patients with complex needs who are at highest risk for hospitalization or death, to our knowledge, no guidance exists on what constitutes measurable high-quality care for this heterogeneous population. Identifying quality measures that are cross-cutting (ie, relevant to multiple chronic conditions and disease states) may enable health care professionals and health care systems to better design and report on quality improvement efforts for this patient population.To identify quality measures of care and prioritize quality-of-care concepts in the ambulatory primary care setting for patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who have complex care needs and are at high risk for adverse outcomes, such as hospitalization or death.In this expert panel assessment and prioritization, relevant measure concepts for future quality measure development in 3 care categories (assessment, management, and other features of health care) were extracted from a systematic review, conducted from June 2020 to June 2021, of published studies that suggested, evaluated, or used indicators of quality care for patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Measure concepts associated with single conditions, surgical or other specialty care settings, and inpatient care were excluded. A panel of 14 experts (10 VHA leaders and staff, 2 non-VHA physician investigators, and 2 veterans) discussed and rated the importance of the remaining set of potentially relevant measure concepts using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method on January 15, 2021. Measure concepts were rated on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 being the highest priority. A median rating of 7.5 or greater was used as the cutoff to identify the highest-priority items.The systematic review identified 519 measure concepts, from which 15 domains and 49 measure concepts were proposed for expert panel consideration. After panel discussions and changes to measure concepts, the expert panel rated 63 measure concepts in 13 domains. The measure concepts with the highest median ratings focused on caregiver availability and support, COVID-19 vaccination, and pneumonia vaccination (all rated 9.0); housing instability (rated 8.5); and physical function, depression symptoms, cognitive impairment, prescription regimen, primary care follow-up after an emergency department visit or hospitalization, and timely transmission of discharge information to primary care (all rated 8.0). Recommendations to improve care included timely assessment of housing instability, caregiver support, physical function, depression symptoms, and cognitive impairment; annual prescription regimen review; coordinated transitions in care; and preventive care including vaccinations.The expert panelists identified a parsimonious set of high-priority, evidence-based, cross-cutting quality measure concepts for improving care of patients at high risk for adverse health outcomes in the VHA. These quality measures may inform both future research for patients at high risk and health care system quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value. OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients. DESIGN: A total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: High-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites. APPROACH: We used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects. KEY RESULTS: Patients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort’s numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC’s effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06869-4.

ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in primary care delivery. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) launched the Preventive Health Inventory (PHI) program—a multicomponent care management intervention, including a clinical dashboard and templated electronic health record note—to support primary care in delivering chronic disease care and preventive care that had been delayed by the pandemic.ObjectivesTo describe patient, clinician, and clinic correlates of PHI use in primary care clinics and to examine associations between PHI adoption and clinical quality measures.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis quality improvement study used VHA administrative data from February 1, 2021, through February 28, 2022, from a national cohort of 216 VHA primary care clinics that have implemented the PHI. Participants comprised 829 527 veterans enrolled in primary care in clinics with the highest and lowest decile of PHI use as of February 2021.ExposureTemplated electronic health record note documenting use of the PHI.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDiabetes and blood pressure clinical quality measures were the primary outcomes. Interrupted time series models were applied to estimate changes in diabetes and hypertension quality measures associated with PHI implementation. Low vs high PHI use was stratified at the facility level to measure whether systematic differences in uptake were associated with quality.ResultsA total of 216 primary clinics caring for 829 527 unique veterans (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [16.9] years; 755 158 of 829 527 [91%] were men) formed the study cohort. Use of the PHI varied considerably across clinics. The clinics in the highest decile of PHI use completed a mean (SD) of 32 997.4 (14 019.3) notes in the electronic health record per 100 000 veterans compared with 56.5 (35.3) notes per 100 000 veterans at the clinics in the lowest decile of use (P P P P P P 1c greater than 9% or missing (mean [SD], 6577 [3216] per 100 000 veterans at low-use clinics; 9928 [4236] per 100 000 veterans at high-use clinics), more veterans with an annual hemoglobin A1c measurement (mean [SD], 13 181 [5625] per 100 000 veterans at high-use clinics; 8307 [3539] per 100 000 veterans at low-use clinics), and more veterans with adequate blood pressure control (mean [SD], 20 582 [12 201] per 100 000 veterans at high-use clinics; 12 276 [6850] per 100 000 veterans at low-use clinics).Conclusions and RelevanceThis quality improvement study of the implementation of the VHA PHI suggests that higher use of a multicomponent care management intervention was associated with improved quality-of-care metrics. The study also found significant variation in PHI uptake, with higher uptake associated with clinics with more racial and ethnic diversity and larger, urban clinic sites.

Objectives The Veterans Health Administration implemented a pilot program for primary care intensive management (PIM) for patients at high risk for hospitalization. We examined the impact of the program on medication adherence and adjustments for patients with chronic conditions. Study design A randomized quality improvement trial was conducted in 5 sites in which high-risk patients were randomized into PIM or usual primary care; outcomes were measured in the 12 months before and after randomization. Interdisciplinary PIM teams assessed patients for unmet needs and offered services including pharmaceutical care and care coordination. Methods Outcomes included adherence, measured by proportion of days covered, and several measures of medication adjustments for diabetes, depression, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension medications. Differences-in-differences methods were used to estimate changes in outcomes between PIM and usual care groups. Results There were 1527 patients in the medication adherence cohort and 1719 in the medication adjustments cohort. Mean adherence was mostly similar between groups but 16% higher among PIM patients for dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (for diabetes) after randomization (0.12 vs -0.04; P = .02). The mean number of hyperlipidemia drugs filled was higher among PIM patients (1.1 vs 1.0; P = .006). The mean number of discontinued depression medications was higher and the mean number of dose changes for hypertension medications was lower for PIM patients, although these comparisons did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions Medication adherence improved for DPP-4 inhibitors, and more hyperlipidemia drugs were prescribed for PIM patients. Overall impacts of PIM were modest.

Using data from a Veterans Health Administration national primary care survey, this study identified the most highly rated tools and care approaches for patients with complex needs and how preferences varied by professional role, staffing, and training. Nurses were significantly more likely to rate most tools as very important as compared with primary care providers. Having a fully staffed team was also significantly associated with a very important rating on all tools. Nurses and fully staffed teams reported a greater likeliness to use most care approaches, and those with perceived need for training reporting a lower likeliness to use.

OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) conducted a randomized quality improvement evaluation to determine whether augmenting patient‐centered medical homes with Primary care Intensive Management (PIM) decreased utilization of acute care and health care costs among patients at high risk for hospitalization. PIM was cost‐neutral in the first year; we analyzed changes in utilization and costs in the second year. DATA SOURCES: VHA administrative data for five demonstration sites from August 2013 to March 2019. DATA SOURCES: Administrative data extracted from VHA's Corporate Data Warehouse. STUDY DESIGN: Veterans with a risk of 90‐day hospitalization in the top 10th percentile and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit were randomly assigned to usual primary care vs primary care augmented by PIM. PIM included interdisciplinary teams, comprehensive patient assessment, intensive case management, and care coordination services. We compared the change in mean VHA inpatient and outpatient utilization and costs (including PIM expenses) per patient for the 12‐month period before randomization and 13‐24 months after randomization for PIM vs usual care using difference‐in‐differences. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Both PIM patients (n = 1902) and usual care patients (n = 1882) had a mean of 5.6 chronic conditions. PIM patients had a greater number of primary care visits compared to those in usual care (mean 4.6 visits/patient/year vs 3.7 visits/patient/year, p

There are unmet primary care needs among people with serious mental illness that might be improved with integrated care and medical care management. Many healthcare organizations have attempted to address this problem, but few interventions have been rigorously studied and found to be effective.Study the implementation and effectiveness of a novel, specialized primary care medical home designed to improve the healthcare of patients with serious mental illness.Clustered controlled trial for a median of 401 days. One Veterans Health Administration medical center was assigned to intervention and two were assigned to usual care (control). Thirty-nine clinicians and managers were included in the study, as well as 331 patients who met eligibility criteria.A specialized medical home with systematic patient engagement, proactive nurse panel management, a collaborative care psychiatrist, and a primary care physician providing care that included psychiatric treatment.Quality of care, chronic illness care and care experience, symptoms, and quality of life.Sixty-five intervention patients (40%) moved all psychiatric care to the primary care team. No adverse events were attributable to the intervention. Compared with control, intervention patients had greater improvement over time in appropriate screening for body mass index, lipids, and glucose (χA primary care medical home for serious mental illness can be feasible to implement, safe, and more effective than usual care.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01668355.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems nationwide are implementing intensive outpatient care programs to optimize care for high-need patients; however, little is known about these patients’ personal goals and factors associated with goal progress. OBJECTIVE: To describe high-need patients’ goals, and to identify factors associated with their goal progress DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: A total of 113 high-need patients participated in a single-site Veterans Affairs intensive outpatient care program. MAIN MEASURES: Two independent reviewers examined patients’ goals recorded in the electronic health record, categorized each goal into one of three domains (medical, behavioral, or social), and determined whether patients attained goal progress during program participation. Logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with goal progress. RESULTS: The majority (n = 72, 64%) of the 113 patients attained goal progress. Among the 100 (88%) patients with at least one identified goal, 58 set goal(s) in the medical domain; 60 in the behavioral domain; and 52 in the social domain. Within each respective domain, 41 (71%) attained medical goal progress; 34 (57%) attained behavioral goal progress; and 32 (62%) attained social goal progress. Patients with mental health condition(s) (aOR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1–0.9; p = 0.03) and those living alone (aOR 0.4; 95% CI 0.1–1.0; p = 0.05) were less likely to attain goal progress. Those with mental health condition(s) and those who were living alone were least likely to attain goal progress (interaction aOR 0.1 compared to those with neither characteristic; 95% CI 0.0-0.7; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-need patients participating in an intensive outpatient care program, patient goals were fairly evenly distributed across medical, behavioral, and social domains. Notably, individuals living alone with mental health conditions were least likely to attain progress. Future care coordination interventions might incorporate strategies to address this gap, e.g., broader integration of behavioral and social service components. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-019-05010-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home. OBJECTIVE: Determine how augmenting the VA’s medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care. INTERVENTION: PIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACT patients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACT patients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Augmenting VA’s patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients’ experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-019-04965-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decreases CRC incidence; however, many patients are not successfully screened. PURPOSE To improve screening rates at our institution by decreasing the rate of rejected fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), a means of CRC screening, from 28.6% to

Intensive primary care programs have had variable impacts on clinical outcomes, possibly due to a lack of consensus on appropriate patient-selection. The US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted an intensive primary care program, known as Patient Aligned Care Team Intensive Management (PIM), in five medical centers. We sought to describe the PIM patient selection process used by PIM teams and to explore perspectives of PIM team members regarding how patient selection processes functioned in context.This study employs an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. We analyzed qualitative interviews with 21 PIM team and facility leaders and electronic health record (EHR) data from 2,061 patients screened between July 2014 and September 2017 for PIM enrollment. Qualitative data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.Of 1,887 patients identified for PIM services using standardized criteria, over half were deemed inappropriate for PIM services, either because of not having an ambulatory care sensitive condition, living situation, or were already receiving recommended care. Qualitative analysis found that team members considered standardized criteria to be a useful starting point but too broad to be relied on exclusively. Additional data collection through chart review and communication with the current primary care team was needed to adequately assess patient complexity. Qualitative analysis further found that differences in conceptualizing program goals led to conflicting opinions of which patients should be enrolled in PIM.A combined approach that includes clinical judgment, case review, standardized criteria, and targeted program goals are all needed to support appropriate patient selection processes.

Many integrated health systems and accountable care organizations have turned to intensive primary care programs to improve quality of care and reduce costs for high-need high-cost patients. How best to implement such programs remains an active area of discussion. In 2014, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented five distinct intensive primary care programs as part of a demonstration project that targeted Veterans at the highest risk for hospitalization. We found that programs evolved over time, eventually converging on the implementation of the following elements: 1) an interdisciplinary care team, 2) chronic disease management, 3) comprehensive patient assessment and evaluation, 4) care and case management, 5) transitional care support, 6) preventive home visits, 7) pharmaceutical services, 8) chronic disease self-management, 9) caregiver support services, 10) health coaching, and 11) advanced care planning. The teams also found that including social workers and mental health providers on the interdisciplinary teams was critical to effectively address psychosocial needs of these complex patients. Having a central implementation coordinator facilitated the convergence of these program features across diverse demonstration sites. In future iterations of these programs, VHA intends to standardize staffing and key features to develop a scalable program that can be disseminated throughout the system.

BACKGROUND: Complex, high-risk patients present challenges for primary care staff. Intensive outpatient management teams aim to serve as a resource for usual primary care to improve care for high-risk patients without adding burden to the primary care staff. Whether such assistance can influence the primary care staff experiences is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine improvement in job satisfaction and intent to stay for primary care staff at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who sought assistance from an intensive management program. METHODS: Longitudinal analysis of a staff cohort that completed 2 cross-sectional surveys 18 months apart, controlling for outcomes at time 1. Participants included 144 primary care providers at 5 geographically diverse VA health care systems who completed both surveys. Measured outcomes included job satisfaction and intent to stay within primary care at the VA (measured at time 2). Predictors included likelihood of using intensive management teams (measured at time 1). Covariates included outcomes and professional/practice characteristics (measured at time 1). RESULTS: The response rate for primary care staff that completed both surveys was 21%. Staff who indicated at time 1 that they were more likely to use intensive management teams for high-risk patients reported significantly higher satisfaction and intention to stay at VA primary care at time 2 (both P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A VA primary care workforce might benefit from assistance from intensive management teams for high-risk patients. Additional work is needed to understand the mechanisms by which primary care staff benefit and how to optimize them.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based therapies for opioid use disorder (OUD) and chronic pain, such as medications for OUD (MOUD) and complementary and integrative health (CIH; e.g., acupuncture and meditation) therapies, exist. However, their adoption has been slow, particularly in primary care, due to numerous implementation challenges. We sought to expand the use of MOUD and CIH within primary care by using an evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) implementation strategy. METHODS: We used EBQI to engage two facilities in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) from June 2018 to September 2019. EBQI included multilevel stakeholder engagement, with external facilitators providing technical support, practice facilitation, and routine data feedback. We established a quality improvement (QI) team at each facility with diverse stakeholders (e.g., primary care, addiction, pain, nursing, pharmacy). We met monthly with regional stakeholders to address implementation barriers. We also convened an advisory board to ensure alignment with national priorities. RESULTS: Pre-implementation interviews indicated facility-level and provider-level barriers to prescribing buprenorphine, including strong primary care provider resistance. Both facilities developed action plans. They both conducted educational meetings (e.g., Grand Rounds, MOUD waiver trainings). Facility A also offered clinical preceptorships for newly trained primary care prescribers. Facility B used mass media and mailings to educate patients about MOUD and CIH options and dashboards to identify potential candidates for MOUD. After 15 months, both facilities increased their OUD treatment rates to the ≥ 90th percentile of VHA medical centers nationally. Exit interviews indicated an attitudinal shift in MOUD delivery in primary care. Stakeholders valued the EBQI process, particularly cross-site collaboration. IMPLICATIONS: Despite initial implementation barriers, we effectively engaged stakeholders using EBQI strategies. Local QI teams used an assortment of QI interventions and developed tools to catapult their facilities to among the highest performers in VHA OUD treatment. IMPACTS: EBQI is an effective strategy to partner with stakeholders to implement MOUD and CIH therapies. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06255-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care (IPC) programs for patients with complex needs do not generate cost savings in most settings. Strengthening existing patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) to address the needs of these patients in primary care is a potential high-value alternative. OBJECTIVES: Explore PCMH team functioning and characteristics that may impact their ability to perform IPC tasks; identify the IPC components that could be incorporated into PCMH teams’ workflow; and identify additional resources, trainings, and staff needed to better manage patients with complex needs in primary care. METHODS: We interviewed 44 primary care leaders, PCMH team members (providers, nurses, social workers), and IPC program leaders at 5 VA IPC sites and analyzed a priori themes using a matrix analysis approach. RESULTS: Higher-functioning PCMH teams were described as already performing most IPC tasks, including panel management and care coordination. All sites reported that PCMH teams had the knowledge and skills to perform IPC tasks, but not with the same intensity as specialized IPC teams. Home visits/assessments and co-attending appointments were perceived as not feasible to perform. Key stakeholders identified 6 categories of supports and capabilities that PCMH teams would need to better manage complex patients, with care coordination/management and fully staffed teams as the most frequently mentioned. Many thought that PCMH teams could make better use of existing VA and non-VA resources, but might need training in identifying and using those resources. CONCLUSIONS: PCMH teams can potentially offer certain clinic-based services associated with IPC programs, but tasks that are time intensive or require physical absence from clinic might require collaboration with community service providers and better use of internal and external healthcare system resources. Future studies should explore the feasibility of PCMH adoption of IPC tasks and the impact on patient outcomes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-020-06563-x.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Like other health systems, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) faces rising healthcare costs, which are disproportionately incurred by highly complex patients. VHA piloted the PACT Intensive Management (PIM) initiative to reduce acute care utilization and improve clinical outcomes among complex veterans through innovative intensive case management strategies in primary care. Prior work showed PIM increased VHA primary care and home visits but did not significantly affect inpatient stays and emergency department (ED) visits. However, this prior work did not consider non‐VHA utilization despite >80% of VHA enrollees having non‐VHA insurance including Medicare. Thus, the goal of this study was to examine the effect of PIM on veterans’ use of VHA and Medicare Fee‐for‐Service (FFS) inpatient and outpatient services. STUDY DESIGN: PIM was a randomized, quality improvement trial of intensive primary care at five VHA facilities. Between July 2014 and December 2016, patients with a recent ED visit or hospitalization, and a risk score above the 90th percentile, as calculated by a previously validated algorithm, were randomized to receive intensive management or usual care. Intensive management consisted of interdisciplinary teams that performed comprehensive assessments, care coordination, medication management, and case management. Usual care consisted of primary care in VHA patient‐centered medical homes. Data were extracted from VHA’s Corporate Data Warehouse and Medicare claims. Primary outcomes were combined VHA and Medicare FFS utilization of inpatient and outpatient services. Inpatient utilization was measured as the number of hospitalizations in seven categories: total acute, medical, surgical, psychiatric, rehabilitation, hospice, and ambulatory care sensitive. Outpatient utilization was measured in seven categories: primary care, specialty care, mental health, surgical, diagnostic, ED, and home health. Prepost changes in 12‐month utilization were compared between PIM and usual care groups using Wilcoxon rank sum test. POPULATION STUDIED: A total of 3489 complex VHA patients randomized to receive intensive management or usual care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The proportion of combined inpatient utilization through Medicare was

Integrated health care systems increasingly focus on improving outcomes among patients at high risk for hospitalization. Examining patterns of where patients obtain care could give health care systems insight into how to develop approaches for high-risk patient care; however, such information is rarely described.To assess use of general and specialized primary care, medical specialty, and mental health services among patients at high risk of hospitalization in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).This national, population-based, retrospective cross-sectional study included all veterans enrolled in any type of VHA primary care service as of September 30, 2015. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2016, to January 1, 2019.Risk of hospitalization and assignment to general vs specialized primary care.High-risk veterans were defined as those who had the 5% highest risk of near-term hospitalization based on a validated risk prediction model; all others were considered low risk. Health care service use was measured by the number of encounters in general primary care, specialized primary care, medical specialty, mental health, emergency department, and add-on intensive management services (eg, telehealth and palliative care).The study assessed 4 309 192 veterans (mean [SD] age, 62.6 [16.0] years; 93% male). Male veterans (93%; odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10-1.13), unmarried veterans (63%; OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.32-2.35), those older than 45 years (94%; 45-65 years of age: OR, 3.49 [95% CI, 3.44-3.54]; 66-75 years of age: OR, 3.04 [95% CI, 3.00-3.09]; and75 years of age: OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 2.38-2.46]), black veterans (23%; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.61-1.64), and those with medical comorbidities (asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: 33%; OR, 4.03 [95% CI, 4.00-4.06]; schizophrenia: 4%; OR, 5.14 [95% CI, 5.05-5.22]; depression: 42%; OR, 3.10 [95% CI, 3.08-3.13]; and alcohol abuse: 20%; OR, 4.54 [95% CI, 4.50-4.59]) were more likely to be high risk (n = 351 012). Most (308 433 [88%]) high-risk veterans were assigned to general primary care; the remaining 12% (42 579 of 363 561) were assigned to specialized primary care (eg, women's health and homelessness). High-risk patients assigned to general primary care had more frequent primary care visits (mean [SD], 6.9 [6.5] per year) than those assigned to specialized primary care (mean [SD], 6.3 [7.3] per year; P .001). They also had more medical specialty care visits (mean [SD], 4.4 [5.9] vs 3.7 [5.4] per year; P .001) and fewer mental health visits (mean [SD], 9.0 [21.6] vs 11.3 [23.9] per year; P .001). Use of intensive supplementary outpatient services was low overall.The findings suggest that, in integrated health care systems, approaches to support high-risk patient care should be embedded within general primary care and mental health care if they are to improve outcomes for high-risk patient populations.

OBJECTIVE: Many healthcare systems employ population-based risk scores to prospectively identify patients at high risk of poor outcomes, but it is unclear whether single point-in-time scores adequately represent future risk. We sought to identify and characterize latent subgroups of high-risk patients based on risk score trajectories. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of 7289 patients discharged from Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals during a 1-week period in November 2012 and categorized in the top 5th percentile of risk for hospitalization. METHODS: Using VA administrative data, we calculated weekly risk scores using the validated Care Assessment Needs model, reflecting the predicted probability of hospitalization. We applied the non-parametric k-means algorithm to identify latent subgroups of patients based on the trajectory of patients’ hospitalization probability over a 2-year period. We then compared baseline sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, health service use, and social instability markers between identified latent subgroups. RESULTS: The best-fitting model identified two subgroups: moderately high and persistently high risk. The moderately high subgroup included 65% of patients and was characterized by moderate subgroup-level hospitalization probability decreasing from 0.22 to 0.10 between weeks 1 and 66, then remaining constant through the study end. The persistently high subgroup, comprising the remaining 35% of patients, had a subgroup-level probability increasing from 0.38 to 0.41 between weeks 1 and 52, and declining to 0.30 at study end. Persistently high-risk patients were older, had higher prevalence of social instability and comorbidities, and used more health services. CONCLUSIONS: On average, one third of patients initially identified as high risk stayed at very high risk over a 2-year follow-up period, while risk for the other two thirds decreased to a moderately high level. This suggests that multiple approaches may be needed to address high-risk patient needs longitudinally or intermittently. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-018-4653-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Patient-centered medical homes have made great strides providing comprehensive care for patients with chronic conditions, but may not provide sufficient support for patients at highest risk for acute care use. To address this, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiated a five-site demonstration project to evaluate the effectiveness of augmenting the VA's Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) medical home with PACT Intensive Management (PIM) teams for Veterans at highest risk for hospitalization. Methods/design Researchers partnered with VHA leadership to design a mixed-methods prospective multi-site evaluation that met leadership's desire for a rigorous evaluation conducted as quality improvement rather than research. We conducted a randomized QI evaluation and assigned high-risk patients to participate in PIM and compared them with high-risk Veterans receiving usual care through PACT. The summative evaluation examines whether PIM: 1) decreases VHA emergency department and hospital use; 2) increases satisfaction with VHA care; 3) decreases provider burnout; and 4) generates positive returns on investment. The formative evaluation aims to support improved care for high-risk patients at demonstration sites and to inform future initiatives for high-risk patients. The evaluation was reviewed by representatives from the VHA Office of Research and Development and the Office of Research Oversight and met criteria for quality improvement. Discussion VHA aims to function as a learning organization by rapidly implementing and rigorously testing QI innovations prior to final program or policy development. We observed challenges and opportunities in designing an evaluation consistent with QI standards and operations priorities, while also maintaining scientific rigor. Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on April 3, 2017: NCT03100526 . Protocol v1, FY14-17.

People with serious mental illness (SMI) die many years prematurely, with rates of premature mortality two to three times greater than the general population. Most premature deaths are due to “natural causes,” especially cardiovascular disease and cancer. Often, people with SMI are not well engaged in primary care treatment and do not receive high-value preventative and medical services. There have been numerous efforts to improve this care, and few controlled trials, with inconsistent results. While people with SMI often do poorly with usual primary care arrangements, research suggests that integrated care and medical care management may improve treatment and outcomes, and reduce treatment costs. This hybrid implementation-effectiveness study is a prospective, cluster controlled trial of a medical home, the SMI Patient-Aligned Care Team (SMI PACT), to improve the healthcare of patients with SMI enrolled with the Veterans Health Administration. The SMI PACT team includes proactive medical nurse care management, and integrated mental health treatment through regular psychiatry consultation and a collaborative care model. Patients are recruited to receive primary care through SMI PACT based on having a serious mental illness that is manageable with treatment, and elevated risk for hospitalization or death. In a site-level prospective controlled trial, this project studies the effect, relative to usual care, of SMI PACT on provision of appropriate preventive and medical treatments, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, and medical and mental health treatment utilization and costs. Research includes mixed-methods formative evaluation of usual care and SMI PACT implementation to strengthen the intervention and assess barriers and facilitators. Investigators examine relationships among organizational context, intervention factors, and patient and clinician outcomes, and identify patient factors related to successful patient outcomes. This will be one of the first controlled trials of the implementation and effectiveness of a patient centered medical home for people with serious mental illness. It will provide information regarding the value of this strategy, and processes and tools for implementing this model in community healthcare settings. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01668355 . Registered August 20, 2012.

Greater access to family support has been shown to positively affect the management of complex patients (i.e., multiple chronic conditions and psychosocial needs). However, patients’ availability of family support is not easily obtainable from medical records. We aim to identify administrative variables that can be used as indicators of family support. We investigated secondary next-of-kin (i.e., patient identified two next-of-kin) and marital status as administratively defined family support availability in a Veteran sample (n=2210). A subsample (n=329) was further evaluated with documented responses to questions “Are there any friends/family members you would like to involve in any aspect of your health care?” (i.e., “actual availability”) and “Does anyone help you with your daily activities?” (i.e., “obtained” availability). We performed a logistic regression analysis to evaluate the association between administratively defined and “actual” or “obtained” availability of support controlling for age, race/ethnicity, and gender. The sample was 90% male, mean age 63 years, 50%White and 44% African American. We found that 32.9% had administratively defined availability by being married, and 32.5% by listing secondary next-of kin. Married Veterans were significantly more likely to report greater actual availability (p=0.01) and obtained (p=0.04) support. Veterans listing a secondary next-of-kin were significantly more likely to report “actual” availability (p= 0.04) but not on “obtained” (p=0.08) support. Marital status may be a useful proxy of actual family support and listing a secondary next-of kin may be an alternate indicator for complex patients. Our study provides guidance on the use of administrative data in understanding caregivers.

Many healthcare systems use prediction models to estimate and manage patient-level probability of hospitalization. Patients identified as high-risk at one point in time may not, however, remain high-risk. We aimed to describe subgroups of patients with distinct longitudinal risk score patterns to inform interventions tailored to patients' needs.Retrospective national cohort study.Using a previously validated prediction algorithm, we identified a cohort of 258,759 patients enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who were in the top 5% of risk for hospitalization within 90 days. During each of the following 24 months, patients were placed in 1 of 6 categories: death, hospitalized, no VHA care, persistently high-risk for hospitalization (≥10% probability), initially high-risk then persistently low-risk (10% probability), and intermittently high-risk. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify characteristics predictive of being persistently high-risk through the last study month.After 2 years, 17.7% had died, 13.8% had remained persistently high-risk for hospitalization, 41.5% had become persistently low-risk, and 19.9% were intermittently high-risk. Predictors of being persistently high-risk included urban residence, chronic medical comorbidities, auditory and visual impairment, chronic pain, any cancer diagnosis, and social instability.Few patients who were high-risk for hospitalization at baseline remained so. Nonrandomized evaluations of interventions that identify patients based on a single high-risk score may spuriously appear to have positive effects. Clinical interventions may need to focus on individuals who are persistently high-risk.

People with serious mental illness have substantially worse health outcomes than people without mental illness. These patients use primary care less often and fail to receive needed preventive and chronic care. While a variety of care models have been implemented with the goal of improving care for these patients, few have been found to be effective. Young et al describes a specialty patient-centered medical home for patients with serious mental illness. In this model, the primary care provider manages the medical and mental health conditions of patients with stable psychiatric symptoms with assistance from a registered nurse and a consulting psychiatrist. The goal of this integrated model is to engage patients in preventive care by building a relationship with them in primary care and understanding both their medical and psychiatric needs. While this model may improve care and increase patient satisfaction, implementing this type of model may be challenging.

Like all facets of healthcare practice, quality improvement (QI) should be conducted in an ethically responsible manner. For methodologically complex QI, accountability and thoughtful ethical monitoring might be particularly important. Yet, access to ethical guidance for QI, as opposed to research, is often limited. Available mechanisms tend to be ill-equipped to accommodate the rapid cycle nature of QI, and monitoring standards for QI are not well defined. Providing appropriate ethical guidance for complex, multi-site QI initiatives can be especially challenging, as the body providing guidance must be familiar with QI methods, recognize the competing interests of stakeholder groups, respond to numerous requests, and understand the initiative's design. This case report describes our solution-an initiative-specific QI Ethics Committee that provided ethical guidance and consultation to a Veterans Administration QI initiative employing local innovations and a centralized evaluation. Enhanced by multiple tables, we discuss structuring and staffing the committee, the committee's role, functions and activities, requests for ethics guidance, and our strategy applying initiative-specific ethical principles to guide recommendations. Supported by feedback obtained from stakeholder interviews, we share key insights regarding the value of: • Clarifying and marketing the committee's role to users. • Reconciling conflicting interests between site-based team members and cross-site evaluators. • Separating ethics guidance from regulatory oversight. • Addressing the ethics of evaluative design. • Adjusting the intensity of the committee's work over time. • Creating tangible products. Our approach shows promise in supporting the ethical practice of methodologically complex QI, especially in institutions that lack applicable ethics monitoring mechanisms. Building on this approach, other complex QI initiatives can develop effective and feasible methods to protect participants from unintentional ethical lapses.

Promising practices for the coordination of chronic care exist, but how to select and share these practices to support quality improvement within a healthcare system is uncertain. This study describes an approach for selecting high-quality tools for an online care coordination toolkit to be used in Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care practices. We evaluated tools in three steps: (1) an initial screening to identify tools relevant to care coordination in VA primary care, (2) a two-clinician expert review process assessing tool characteristics (e.g. frequency of problem addressed, linkage to patients' experience of care, effect on practice workflow, and sustainability with existing resources) and assigning each tool a summary rating, and (3) semi-structured interviews with VA patients and frontline clinicians and staff. Of 300 potentially relevant tools identified by searching online resources, 65, 38, and 18 remained after steps one, two and three, respectively. The 18 tools cover five topics: managing referrals to specialty care, medication management, patient after-visit summary, patient activation materials, agenda setting, patient pre-visit packet, and provider contact information for patients. The final toolkit provides access to the 18 tools, as well as detailed information about tools' expected benefits, and resources required for tool implementation. Future care coordination efforts can benefit from systematically reviewing available tools to identify those that are high quality and relevant.

The ventilator-associated event (VAE) is a potentially avoidable complication of mechanical ventilation (MV) associated with poor outcomes. Although rare, VAEs and other nosocomial events are frequently targeted for quality improvement efforts consistent with the creed to ‘do no harm’. In October 2016, VA Greater Los Angeles (GLA) was in the lowest-performing decile of VA medical centres on a composite measure of quality, owing to GLA’s relatively high VAE rate. To decrease VAEs, we sought to reduce average MV duration of patients with acute respiratory failure to less than 3 days by 1 July 2017. In our first intervention (period 1), intensive care unit (ICU) attending physicians trained residents to use an existing ventilator bundle order set; in our second intervention (period 2), we updated the order set to streamline order entry and incorporate new nurse-driven and respiratory therapist (RT)-driven spontaneous awakening trial (SAT) and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) protocols. In period 1, the proportion of eligible patients with SAT and SBT orders increased from 29.9% and 51.2% to 67.4% and 72.6%, respectively, with sustained improvements through December 2017. Mean MV duration decreased from 7.2 days at baseline to 5.5 days in period 1 and 4.7 days in period 2; statistical process control charts revealed no significant differences, but the difference between baseline and period 2 MV duration was statistically significant at p=0.049. Bedside audits showed RTs consistently performed indicated SBTs, but there were missed opportunities for SATs due to ICU staff concerns about the SAT protocol. The rarity of VAEs, small population of ventilated patients and infrequent use of sedative infusions at GLA may have decreased the opportunity to achieve staff acceptance and use of the SAT protocol. Quality improvement teams should consider frequency of targeted outcomes when planning interventions; rare events pose challenges in implementation and evaluation of change.

ObjectiveDepression and substance abuse are common among low-income adults from racial-ethnic minority groups who receive services in safety-net settings, although little is known about how clients differ by service setting. This study examined characteristics and service use among depressed, low-income persons from minority groups in underresourced communities who did and did not have a substance abuse history.MethodsThe study used cross-sectional baseline client data (N=957) from Community Partners in Care, an initiative to improve depression services in Los Angeles County. Clients with probable depression (eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire) from substance abuse programs were compared with depressed clients with and without a history of substance abuse from primary care, mental health, and social and community programs. Sociodemographic, health status, and services utilization variables were examined.ResultsOf the 957 depressed clients, 217 (23%) were from substance abuse programs; 269 (28%) clients from other sectors had a substance abuse history, and 471 (49%) did not. Most clients from substance abuse programs or with a substance abuse history were unemployed and impoverished, lacked health insurance, and had high rates of arrests and homelessness. They were also more likely than clients without a substance abuse history to have depression or anxiety disorders, psychosis, and mania and to use emergency rooms.ConclusionsClients with depression and a substance abuse history had significant psychosocial stressors and high rates of service use, which suggests that communitywide approaches may be needed to address both depression and substance abuse in this safety-net population.

Homeless patients have high rates of visual impairment and lower rates of glycemic control than housed patients. Although diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the most common cause of new visual impairment and legal blindness in the developed world, little is known about differential risk factors for and rates of DR in homeless versus housed populations. This study aimed to compare the rates of DR between homeless and housed patients with diabetes at the Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Health care System (GLA) and identify clinical and psychosocial predictors of DR rates. We performed secondary database analyses of veterans with diabetes who received care at GLA between October 1, 2013 and September 30, 2015. We described differences in demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics associated with DR in homeless versus housed patients, and created a logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of DR. We found that diabetic veterans who were homeless, as compared with those who were housed, had higher rates of substance use disorders and mental health diagnoses, more primary care and mental health visits, and were more likely to have had diabetic retinopathy eye screening according to guidelines. Multiple logistic regression modeling predicting having DR, revealed that having DR was independently associated with not being homeless (i.e., being housed), older age, having had retinal screening, anemia, higher systolic blood pressure, insulin use, microalbuminuria, and higher HbA1c. Homeless diabetic veterans' lower rates of DR may be due to the GLA VA's tailored and intensive psychological and medical resources for homeless veteran patients. (PsycINFO Database Record

BackgroundThe high prevalence of comorbid physical and mental illnesses among veterans is well known. Therefore, ensuring effective communication between primary care (PC) and mental health (MH) clinicians in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is essential. The VA's Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) initiative has further raised awareness of the need for communication between PC and MH. Improving such communication, however, has proven challenging.ObjectiveTo qualitatively understand barriers to PC-MH communication in an academic community-based clinic by using continuous quality improvement (CQI) tools and then initiate a change strategy.Design, participants, and approachAn interdisciplinary quality improvement (QI) work group composed of 11 on-site PC and MH providers, administrators, and researchers identified communication barriers and facilitators using fishbone diagrams and process flow maps. The work group then verified and provided context for the diagram and flow maps through medical record review (32 patients who received both PC and MH care), interviews (6 stakeholders), and reports from four previously completed focus groups. Based on these findings and a previous systematic review of interventions to improve interspecialty communication, the team initiated plans for improvement.Key resultsKey communication barriers included lack of effective standardized communication processes, practice style differences, and inadequate PC training in MH. Clinicians often accessed advice or formal consultation based on pre-existing across-discipline personal relationships. The work group identified collocated collaborative care, joint care planning, and joint case conferences as feasible, evidence-based interventions for improving communication.ConclusionsCQI tools enabled providers to systematically assess local communication barriers and facilitators and engaged stakeholders in developing possible solutions. A locally tailored CQI process focusing on communication helped initiate change strategies and ongoing improvement efforts.

Primary care providers (PCPs) vary in skills to effectively treat depression. Key features of evidence-based collaborative care models (CCMs) include the availability of depression care managers (DCMs) and mental health specialists (MHSs) in primary care. Little is known, however, about the relationships between PCP characteristics, CCM features, and PCP depression care.To assess relationships between various CCM features, PCP characteristics, and PCP depression management.Cross-sectional analysis of a provider survey.180 PCPs in eight VA sites nationwide.Independent variables included scales measuring comfort and difficulty with depression care; collaboration with a MHS; self-reported depression caseload; availability of a collocated MHS, and co-management with a DCM or MHS. Covariates included provider type and gender. For outcomes, we assessed PCP self-reported performance of key depression management behaviors in primary care in the past 6 months.Response rate was 52 % overall, with 47 % attending physicians, 34 % residents, and 19 % nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Half (52 %) reported greater than eight veterans with depression in their panels and a MHS collocated in primary care (50 %). Seven of the eight clinics had a DCM. In multivariable analysis, significant predictors for PCP depression management included comfort, difficulty, co-management with MHSs and numbers of veterans with depression in their panels.PCPs who felt greater ease and comfort in managing depression, co-managed with MHSs, and reported higher depression caseloads, were more likely to report performing depression management behaviors. Neither a collocated MHS, collaborating with a MHS, nor co-managing with a DCM independently predicted PCP depression management. Because the success of collaborative care for depression depends on the ability and willingness of PCPs to engage in managing depression themselves, along with other providers, more research is necessary to understand how to engage PCPs in depression management.

BACKGROUND Depression management can be challenging for primary care (PC) settings. While several evidence-based models exist for depression care, little is known about the relationships between PC practice characteristics, model characteristics, and the practice’s choices regarding model adoption.

This study explored the role of organizational factors in the ability of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinics to implement colocated mental health care in primary care settings (PC-MH). The study used data from the VHA Clinical Practice Organizational Survey collected in 2007 from 225 clinic administrators across the United States. Clinic degree of implementation of PC-MH was the dependent variable, whereas independent variables included policies and procedures, organizational context, and leaders’ perceptions of barriers to change. Pearson bivariate correlations and multivariable linear regression were used to test hypotheses. Results show that depression care training for primary care providers and clinics’ flexibility and participation were both positively correlated with implementation of PC-MH. However, after accounting for other factors, regressions show that only training primary care providers in depression care was marginally associated with degree of implementation of PC-MH (p = 0.051). Given the importance of this topic for implementing integrated care as part of health care reform, these null findings underscore the need to improve theory and testing of more proximal measures of colocation in future work.