Search

BackgroundThe Veteran Administration (VA) Office of Patient-Centered Care and Cultural Transformation is invested in improving veteran health through a whole-person approach while taking advantage of the electronic resources suite available through the VA. Currently, there is no standardized process to collect and integrate electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) of complementary and integrative health (CIH) into clinical care using a web-based survey platform. This quality improvement project enrolled veterans attending CIH appointments within a VA facility and used web-based technologies to collect ePROs. ObjectiveThis study aimed to (1) determine a practical process for collecting ePROs using patient email services and a web-based survey platform and (2) conduct analyses of survey data using repeated measures to estimate the effects of CIH on patient outcomes. MethodsIn total, 100 veterans from one VA facility, comprising 11 cohorts, agreed to participate. The VA patient email services (Secure Messaging) were used to manually send links to a 16-item web-based survey stored on a secure web-based survey storage platform (Qualtrics). Each survey included questions about patient outcomes from CIH programs. Each cohort was sent survey links via Secure Messaging (SM) at 6 time points: weeks 1 through 4, week 8, and week 12. Process evaluation interviews were conducted with five primary care providers to assess barriers and facilitators to using the patient-reported outcome survey in usual care. ResultsThis quality improvement project demonstrated the usability of SM and Qualtrics for ePRO collection. However, SM for ePROs was labor intensive for providers. Descriptive statistics on health competence (2-item Perceived Health Competence Scale), physical and mental health (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10), and stress (4-item Perceived Stress Scale) indicated that scores did not significantly change over time. Survey response rates varied (18/100, 18.0%-42/100, 42.0%) across each of the 12 weekly survey periods. In total, 74 of 100 participants provided ≥1 survey, and 90% (66/74) were female. The majority, 62% (33/53) of participants, who reported the use of any CIH modality, reported the use of two or more unique modalities. Primary care providers highlighted specific challenges with SM and offered solutions regarding staff involvement in survey implementation. ConclusionsThis quality improvement project informs our understanding of the processes currently available for using SM and web-based data platforms to collect ePROs. The study results indicate that although it is possible to use SM and web-based survey platforms for ePROs, automating scheduled administration will be necessary to reduce provider burden. The lack of significant change in ePROs may be due to standard measures taking a biomedical approach to wellness. Future work should focus on identifying ideal ePRO processes that would include standardized, whole-person measures of wellness.

BackgroundThe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed health information technologies (HIT) and resources to improve veteran access to health care programs and services, and to support a patient-centered approach to health care delivery. To improve VA HIT access and meaningful use by veterans, it is necessary to understand their preferences for interacting with various HIT resources to accomplish health management related tasks and to exchange information. ObjectiveThe objective of this paper was to describe a novel protocol for: (1) developing a HIT Digital Health Matrix Model; (2) conducting an Analytic Hierarchy Process called pairwise comparison to understand how and why veterans want to use electronic health resources to complete tasks related to health management; and (3) developing visual modeling simulations that depict veterans’ preferences for using VA HIT to manage their health conditions and exchange health information. MethodsThe study uses participatory research methods to understand how veterans prefer to use VA HIT to accomplish health management tasks within a given context, and how they would like to interact with HIT interfaces (eg, look, feel, and function) in the future. This study includes two rounds of veteran focus groups with self-administered surveys and visual modeling simulation techniques. This study will also convene an expert panel to assist in the development of a VA HIT Digital Health Matrix Model, so that both expert panel members and veteran participants can complete an Analytic Hierarchy Process, pairwise comparisons to evaluate and rank the applicability of electronic health resources for a series of health management tasks. ResultsThis protocol describes the iterative, participatory, and patient-centered process for: (1) developing a VA HIT Digital Health Matrix Model that outlines current VA patient-facing platforms available to veterans, describing their features and relevant contexts for use; and (2) developing visual model simulations based on direct veteran feedback that depict patient preferences for enhancing the synchronization, integration, and standardization of VA patient-facing platforms. Focus group topics include current uses, preferences, facilitators, and barriers to using electronic health resources; recommendations for synchronizing, integrating, and standardizing VA HIT; and preferences on data sharing and delegation within the VA system. ConclusionsThis work highlights the practical, technological, and personal factors that facilitate and inhibit use of current VA HIT, and informs an integrated system redesign. The Digital Health Matrix Model and visual modeling simulations use knowledge of veteran preferences and experiences to directly inform enhancements to VA HIT and provide a more holistic and integrated user experience. These efforts are designed to support the adoption and sustained use of VA HIT to support patient self-management and clinical care coordination in ways that are directly aligned with veteran preferences.

BackgroundThe United States Department of Veterans Affairs has implemented an electronic asynchronous “Secure Messaging” tool within a Web-based patient portal (ie, My HealtheVet) to support patient-provider communication. This electronic resource promotes continuous and coordinated patient-centered care, but to date little research has evaluated patients’ experiences and preferences for using Secure Messaging. ObjectiveThe objectives of this mixed-methods study were to (1) characterize veterans’ experiences using Secure Messaging in the My HealtheVet portal over a 3-month period, including system usability, (2) identify barriers to and facilitators of use, and (3) describe strategies to support veterans’ use of Secure Messaging. MethodsWe recruited 33 veterans who had access to and had previously used the portal’s Secure Messaging tool. We used a combination of in-depth interviews, face-to-face user-testing, review of transmitted secure messages between veterans and staff, and telephone interviews three months following initial contact. We assessed participants’ computer and health literacy during initial and follow-up interviews. We used a content-analysis approach to identify dominant themes in the qualitative data. We compared inferences from each of the data sources (interviews, user-testing, and message review) to identify convergent and divergent data trends. ResultsThe majority of veterans (27/33, 82%) reported being satisfied with Secure Messaging at initial interview; satisfaction ratings increased to 97% (31/32, 1 missing) during follow-up interviews. Veterans noted Secure Messaging to be useful for communicating with their primary care team to manage health care needs (eg, health-related questions, test requests and results, medication refills and questions, managing appointments). Four domains emerged from interviews: (1) perceived benefits of using Secure Messaging, (2) barriers to using Secure Messaging, (3) facilitators for using Secure Messaging, and (4) suggestions for improving Secure Messaging. Veterans identified and demonstrated impediments to successful system usage that can be addressed with education, skill building, and system modifications. Analysis of secure message content data provided insights to reasons for use that were not disclosed by participants during interviews, specifically sensitive health topics such as erectile dysfunction and sexually transmitted disease inquiries. ConclusionsVeterans perceive Secure Messaging in the My HealtheVet patient portal as a useful tool for communicating with health care teams. However, to maximize sustained utilization of Secure Messaging, marketing, education, skill building, and system modifications are needed. Data from this study can inform a large-scale quantitative assessment of Secure Messaging users’ experiences in a representative sample to validate qualitative findings.

Introduction: Transforming Health and Resilience through Integration of Values-based Experiences (THRIVE) is a complimentary and integrative health program. THRIVE is delivered through shared medical appointments where participants engage in provider-led education and group discussion on wellness-related topics. THRIVE has been associated with improved patient-reported outcomes in a female veteran cohort. This quality improvement study evaluated the association between THRIVE participation and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) healthcare costs across a 1 year period. Materials and Methods: A cohort study design (n = 184) used VHA administrative data to estimate the cost difference between 1 year pre- and post-THRIVE participation. The 1 year post-cost of the THRIVE cohort was then compared to the 1 year cost of a quasi-experimental waitlist control group (n = 156). Data sources included VHA administrative and electronic health records. Results: Patients were roughly 51 years old, were typically White/Caucasian, and had a service priority level representing catastrophic disability. The adjusted post-THRIVE cost was $26,291 [95% confidence interval (CI): $23,014–29,015]; $1,720 higher than the previous year's cost but was not statistically significant (P = 0.289). However, a comparison between the THRIVE cohort and a group of waitlist THRIVE patients (n = 156) the intervention group on average was $8,108 more than the waitlist group (95% CI: $3,194–14,005; P < 0.01). Conclusions: In summary, data analysis of veterans' annual healthcare cost trajectories were inconclusive. This preliminary study produced mixed results requiring more research with larger samples and randomized control trial methodology. Evidence of whether the THRIVE intervention can maintain cost effectiveness while maintaining its supported evidence of healthcare quality is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]