Search

BackgroundThe US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) seeks to achieve interoperability with other organizations, including non-VA community and regional health information exchanges (HIEs). ObjectiveThis study aims to understand the perspectives of leaders involved in implementing information exchange between VA and non-VA providers via a community HIE. MethodsWe interviewed operational, clinical, and information technology leaders at one VA facility and its community HIE partner. Respondents discussed their experiences with VA-HIE, including barriers and facilitators to implementation, and the associated impact on health care providers. Transcribed interviews were coded and analyzed using immersion-crystallization methods. ResultsVA and community HIE leaders found training to be a key factor when implementing VA-HIE and worked cooperatively to provide several styles and locations of training. During recruitment, a high-touch approach was successfully used to enroll patients and overcome their resistance to opting in. Discussion with leaders revealed the high levels of complexity navigated by VA providers and staff to send and retrieve information. Part of the complexity stemmed from the interconnected web of information systems and human teams necessary to implement VA-HIE information sharing. These interrelationships must be effectively managed to guide organizational decision making. ConclusionsOrganizational leaders perceived information sharing to be of essential value in delivering high-quality, coordinated health care. The VA continues to increase access to outside care through the VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act. Along with this increase in non-VA medical care, there is a need for greater information sharing between VA and non-VA health care organizations. Insights by leaders into barriers and facilitators to VA-HIE can be applied by other national and regional networks that seek to achieve interoperability across health care delivery systems.

BackgroundMy HealtheVet (MHV) is the personal health record and patient portal developed by the United States Veterans Health Administration (VA). While millions of American veterans have registered for MHV, little is known about how a patient’s health status may affect adoption and use of the personal health record. ObjectiveOur aim was to characterize the reach of the VA personal health record by clinical condition. MethodsThis was a cross-sectional analysis of all veterans nationwide with at least one inpatient admission or two outpatient visits between April 2010 and March 2012. We compared adoption (registration, authentication, opt-in to use secure messaging) and use (prescription refill and secure messaging) of MHV in April 2012 across 18 specific clinical conditions prevalent in and of high priority to the VA. We calculated predicted probabilities of adoption by condition using multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for sociodemographics, comorbidities, and clustering of patients within facilities. ResultsAmong 6,012,875 veterans, 6.20% were women, 61.45% were Caucasian, and 26.31% resided in rural areas. The mean age was 63.3 years. Nationwide, 18.64% had registered for MHV, 11.06% refilled prescriptions via MHV, and 1.91% used secure messaging with their clinical providers. Results from the multivariable regression suggest that patients with HIV, hyperlipidemia, and spinal cord injury had the highest predicted probabilities of adoption, whereas those with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder, alcohol or drug abuse, and stroke had the lowest. Variation was observed across diagnoses in actual (unadjusted) adoption and use, with registration rates ranging from 29.19% of patients with traumatic brain injury to 14.18% of those with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder. Some of the variation in actual reach can be explained by facility-level differences in MHV adoption and by differences in patients’ sociodemographic characteristics (eg, age, race, income) by diagnosis. ConclusionsIn this phase of early adoption, opportunities are being missed for those with specific medical conditions that require intensive treatment and self-management, which could be greatly supported by functions of a tethered personal health record.

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) serve to communicate critical information needed for cancer survivors' long-term follow-up care. The extent to which SCPs are tailored to meet the specific needs of underserved patient populations is understudied. To fill this gap, this study aimed to assess the content and communication appropriateness of SCPs collected from diverse healthcare settings. We analyzed collected SCPs (n = 16) for concordance with Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations for SCP content and for communication appropriateness using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument. All plans failed to incorporate all IOM criteria, with the majority of plans (n = 11) incorporating less than 60% of recommended content. The average reading grade level of all the plans was 14, and only one plan received a superior rating for cultural appropriateness. There is significant variation in the format and content of SCPs used in diverse hospital settings and most plans are not written at an appropriate reading grade level nor tailored for underserved and/or minority patient populations. Co-designing SCPs with diverse patient populations is crucial to ensure that these documents are meeting the needs and preferences of all cancer survivors.

This perspective paper seeks to lay out an efficient approach for health care providers, researchers, and other stakeholders involved in interventions aimed at improving care coordination to partner in locating and using applicable care coordination theory. The objective is to learn from relevant theory-based literature about fit between intervention options and coordination needs, thereby bringing insights from theory to enhance intervention design, implementation, and troubleshooting. To take this idea from an abstract notion to tangible application, our workgroup on models and measures from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) State of the Art (SOTA) conference on care coordination first summarizes our distillation of care coordination theoretical frameworks (models) into three common conceptual domains-context of an intervention, locus in which an intervention is applied, and specific design features of the intervention. Then we apply these three conceptual domains to four cases of care coordination interventions ("use cases") chosen to represent various scopes and stages of interventions to improve care coordination for veterans. Taken together, these examples make theory more accessible and practical by demonstrating how it can be applied to specific cases. Drawing from theory offers one method to anticipate which intervention options match a particular coordination situation.

PurposeLittle is known about the roles of genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening in the formulation of predictive and prognostic assessments for patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsFrom 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium and evaluated oncologists' selection of microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, germline testing for MMR genes, BRAF and KRAS mutation analysis, and Oncotype DX in stage II CRC. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three vignettes that varied by strength of CRC family history. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with test selection.ResultsAmong 327 oncologists, MSI and/or IHC for MMR proteins were most frequently selected (n = 205; 64%), with 82% versus 53% choosing MSI/IHC testing in patients with strong versus no CRC family history, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.87; 95% CI, 2.07 to 7.22). KRAS and Oncotype DX testing were chosen by 24% and 38% of oncologists, respectively. Graduates of non-US and Canadian medical schools and physicians compensated by fee-for-service or on the basis of productivity were more likely to choose KRAS testing versus those receiving salaries not on the basis of productivity (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.99; and OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.66, respectively). Fee-for-service or productivity-based salaries were also associated with increased odds of Oncotype DX testing (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.55).ConclusionAmong surveyed oncologists, we found undertesting and overtesting related to genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening for patients with stage II CRC,highlighting the need for improved implementation, targeted education, and evaluation of organizational and financial arrangements to promote the appropriate use of such tests.

PurposeThere have been numerous reports of shortages of injectable drugs for cancer in the last decade. We assessed physician experiences with drug shortages in a population-based cohort of medical oncologists caring for patients with lung or colorectal cancer.MethodsWe surveyed medical oncologists caring for patients with lung or colorectal cancer in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium from 2012 to 2013 (participation rate, 53%). Oncologists reported experiences with shortages of leucovorin, fluorouracil, dexamethasone, cyanocobalamin, paclitaxel, cisplatin, and etoposide in the prior year and whether they had used a less-effective alternative because of a shortage. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess for associations between physician or practice characteristics and encountering shortages.ResultsAmong 330 respondents, 74% reported experiences with a shortage of at least one drug in our survey, and 28% reported using a less-effective alternative because of a shortage. Although physician demographic characteristics did not predict reports of drug shortages, practice characteristics did. Veterans Affairs (VA) oncologists were less likely to report experiencing any shortage than oncologists in single-specialty group practice (odds ratio [OR], 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9). The reported use of a less effective alternative to any drug was also less common among VA oncologists (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.9) and oncologists affiliated with health maintenance organizations (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9) compared with physicians in single-specialty groups.ConclusionMost oncologists encountered drug shortages in the year before our survey, but experiences with shortages varied with practice structure. Further research is needed to quantitatively assess the impact of drug shortages on patients and evaluate various strategies for managing them.

BackgroundThis study assessed the contribution of organizational structures and processes identified from facility surveys to follow-up for positive fecal occult blood tests [FOBT-positive (FOBT(+))].MethodsWe identified 74,104 patients with FOBT(+) results from 98 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities between August 16, 2009 and March 20, 2011, and followed them until September 30, 2011, for completion of colonoscopy. We identified patient characteristics from VHA administrative records, and organizational factors from facility surveys completed by primary care and gastroenterology chiefs. We estimated predictors of colonoscopy completion within 60 days and six months using hierarchical logistic regression models.ResultsThirty percent of patients with FOBT(+) results received colonoscopy within 60 days and 49% within six months. Having gastroenterology or laboratory staff notify gastroenterology providers directly about FOBT(+) cases was a significant predictor of 60-day [odds ratio (OR), 1.85; P = 0.01] and six-month follow-up (OR, 1.25; P = 0.008). Additional predictors of 60-day follow-up included adequacy of colonoscopy appointment availability (OR, 1.43; P = 0.01) and frequent individual feedback to primary care providers about FOBT(+) referral timeliness (OR, 1.79; P = 0.04). Additional predictors of six-month follow-up included using guideline-concordant surveillance intervals for low-risk adenomas (OR, 1.57; P = 0.01) and using group appointments and combined verbal-written methods for colonoscopy preparation instruction (OR, 1.48; P = 0.0001).ConclusionDirectly notifying gastroenterology providers about FOBT(+) results, using guideline-concordant adenoma surveillance intervals, and using colonoscopy preparations instruction methods that provide both verbal and written information may increase overall follow-up rates. Enhancing follow-up within 60 days may require increased colonoscopy capacity and feedback to primary care providers.ImpactThese findings may inform organizational-level interventions to improve FOBT(+) follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCPs), including a treatment summary and follow-up plan, intend to promote coordination of posttreatment cancer care; yet, little is known about the provision of these documents by oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs). This study compared self-reported oncologist provision and PCP receipt of treatment summaries and follow-up plans, characterized oncologists who reported consistent provision of these documents to PCPs, and examined associations between PCP receipt of these documents and survivorship care. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of medical oncologists (n = 1130) and PCPs (n = 1020) were surveyed regarding follow-up care for breast and colon cancer survivors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Multivariable regression models identified factors associated with oncologist provision of treatment summaries and SCPs to PCPs (always/almost always vs less frequent). RESULTS: Nearly half of oncologists reported always/almost always providing treatment summaries, whereas 20.2% reported always/almost always providing SCPs (treatment summary + follow-up plan). Approximately one-third of PCPs indicated always/almost always receiving treatment summaries; 13.4% reported always/almost always receiving SCPs. Oncologists who reported training in late- and long-term effects of cancer and use of electronic medical records were more likely to report SCP provision (P < .05). PCP receipt of SCPs was associated with better PCP-reported care coordination, physician-physician communication, and confidence in survivorship care knowledge compared to receipt of neither treatment summaries nor SCPs (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Providing SCPs to PCPs may enhance survivorship care coordination, physician-physician communication, and PCP confidence. However, considerable progress will be necessary to achieve implementation of sharing SCPs among oncologists and PCPs.