Search

Lack of palliative care (PC) awareness is a barrier to its utilization in developing contexts.To identify and understand strategies that changed awareness of the concepts and value of palliative care in a multi-site quality improvement project in India.The Palliative Care - Promoting Assessment and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) evaluation team conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with clinician and organization stakeholders at seven geographically dispersed sites. We used inductive and deductive approaches in this secondary analysis to identify emerging themes.We identified the following strategies to improve awareness of concepts and value of palliative care. Strategy 1: Educate medical trainees, staff, and the community about palliative care and its concepts. Sub-strategies: Participate in community events. Integrate PC concepts into early medical education. Standardize training for practitioners. Strategy 2: Design and disseminate India-specific research to reinforce awareness of the value of palliative care. Sub-strategies: Publish and use India-specific palliative care research. Strategy 3: Facilitate communication between providers and departments to improve awareness of palliative care services and its concepts. Sub-strategies: Create referral frameworks and network with providers referring to palliative care to change awareness of available services and palliative care concepts.To increase palliative care utilization, program development can include community and provider-focused efforts on awareness of the concepts and value of palliative care. These three strategies held salience across sites representing diverse Indian geographic and cultural settings; as such, they may be applicable to other contexts.

Patient experiences should be considered by healthcare systems when implementing care practices to improve quality of end-of-life care. Families and caregivers of recent in-patient decedents may be best positioned to recommend practices for quality improvement.To identify actionable practices that bereaved families highlight as contributing to high quality end-of-life care.We conducted qualitative content analysis of narrative responses to the Bereaved Family Surveys Veterans Health Administration inpatient decedents. Out of 5964 completed surveys in 2017, 4604 (77%) contained at least one word in response to the open-ended questions. For feasibility, 1500/4604 responses were randomly selected for analysis. An additional 300 randomly selected responses were analyzed to confirm saturation.Over 23% percent (355/1500) of the initially analyzed narrative responses contained actionable practices. By synthesizing narrative responses to the BFS in a national healthcare system, we identified 98 actionable practices reported by the bereaved families that have potential for implementation in QI efforts. Specifically, we identified 67 end-of-life practices and 31 practices in patient-centered care domains of physical environment, food, staffing, coordination, technology and transportation. The 67 cluster into domains including respectful care and communication, emotional and spiritual support, death benefits, symptom management. Sorting these practices by target levels for organizational change illuminated opportunities for implementation.Narrative responses from bereaved family members can yield approaches for systematic quality improvement. These approaches can serve as a menu in diverse contexts looking for approaches to improve patient quality of death in in-patient settings.

BACKGROUND: Development and prioritization of quality measures typically relies on experts in clinical medicine, but patients and their caregivers may have different perspectives on quality measurement priorities. OBJECTIVE: To inform priorities for health system implementation of palliative cancer and end-of-life care quality measures by eliciting perspectives of patients and caregivers. DESIGN: Using modified RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Panel methods and materials tailored for knowledgeable lay participants, we convened a panel to rate cancer palliative care process quality measure concepts before and after a 1-day, in-person meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Nine patients and caregivers with experience living with or caring for patients with cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Panelists rated each concept on importance for providing patient- and family-centered care on a nine-point scale and each panelist nominated five highest priority measure concepts (“top 5”). KEY RESULTS: Cancer patient and caregiver panelists rated all measure concepts presented as highly important to patient- and family- centered care (median rating ≥ 7) in pre-panel (mean rating range, 6.9–8.8) and post-panel ratings (mean rating range, 7.2–8.9). Forced choice nominations of the “top 5” helped distinguish similarly rated measure concepts. Measure concepts nominated into the “top 5” by three or more panelists included two measure concepts of communication (goals of care discussions and discussion of prognosis), one measure concept on providing comprehensive assessments of patients, and three on symptoms including pain management plans, improvement in pain, and depression management plans. Patients and caregivers nominated one additional measure concept (pain screening) back into consideration, bringing the total number of measure concepts under consideration to 21. CONCLUSIONS: Input from cancer patients and caregivers helped identify quality measurement priorities for health system implementation. Forced choice nominations were useful to discriminate concepts with the highest perceived importance. Our approach serves as a model for incorporating patient and caregiver priorities in quality measure development and implementation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07041-8.

PURPOSE: To understand how patients and providers weigh the risks and benefits of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for cancer pain. METHODS: Researchers used VA approved audio-recording devices to record interviews. ATLAS t.i., a qualitative analysis software, was used for analysis of transcribed interview data. Participants included 20 Veteran patients and 20 interdisciplinary providers from primary care– and oncology-based practice settings. We conducted semistructured interviews and analyzed transcripts used thematic qualitative methods. Interviews explored factors that affect decision making about appropriateness of LTOT for cancer related pain. We saturated themes for providers and patients separately. RESULTS: Factors affecting patient decision-making included influence from various information sources, persuasion from trusted providers, and sometimes deferral of the decision to their provider. Relative prioritization of pain management as the focal patient concern varied with some patients describing comparatively more fear of chemotherapy than opioid analgesics, comparatively more knowledge of opioids in relation to other drugs;patients expressed a preference to spend the limited time they have with their oncologist discussing cancer treatment rather than opioid use. Factors affecting provider decision making included prognosis, patient goals, patient characteristics, and provider experience and biases. Providers differed in how they weigh the relative importance of alleviating pain or avoiding opioids in the face of treating patients with cancer and histories of substance abuse. CONCLUSION: Divergent perspectives on factors need to be considered when weighing risks and benefits. Policies and interventions should be designed to reduce variation in practice to promote equal access to adequate pain management. Improved shared decision-making initiatives will take advantage of patient decision-making factors and priorities.

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a common and highly disabling problem world-wide. Although many treatment options exist, it is unclear how to best sequence the multitude of care options to provide the greatest benefit to patients.The Sequential and Comparative Evaluation of Pain Treatment Effectiveness Response (SCEPTER) trial uses a pragmatic, randomized, stepped design. Enrollment targets 2529 participants from 20 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Participants with chronic low back pain will first be randomized to one of three options: 1) an internet-based self-management program (Pain EASE); 2) a tailored physical therapy program (Enhanced PT); or 3) continued care with active monitoring (CCAM), a form of usual care. Participants not achieving a 30% or 2-point reduction on the study's primary outcome (Brief Pain Inventory Pain Interference (BPI-PI) subscale), 3 months after beginning treatment may undergo re-randomization in a second step to cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain, spinal manipulation therapy, or yoga. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, back pain-related disability, depression, and others. Participants will be assessed every three months until 12 months after initiating their final trial therapy. Companion economic and implementation analyses are also planned.The SCEPTER trial is currently recruiting and enrolling participants.Trial results will inform treatment decisions for the stepped management of chronic low back pain - a common and disabling condition. Additional analyses will help tailor treatment selection to individual patient characteristics, promote efficient resource use, and identify implementation barriers of interventions.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04142177.

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain is highly prevalent and often managed in primary care or by oncology providers in combination with primary care providers. OBJECTIVES: To understand interdisciplinary provider experiences coordinating opioid pain management for patients with chronic cancer–related pain in a large integrated healthcare system. DESIGN: Qualitative research. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with interdisciplinary providers in two large academically affiliated VA Medical Centers and their associated community-based outpatient clinics. Participants included primary care providers (PCPs) and oncology-based personnel (OBPs). APPROACH: We deductively identified 94 examples of care coordination for cancer pain in the 20 interviews. We secondarily used an inductive open coding approach and identified themes through constant comparison coming to research team consensus. RESULTS: Theme 1: PCPs and OBPs generally believed one provider should handle all opioid prescribing for a specific patient, but did not always agree on who that prescriber should be in the context of cancer pain. Theme 2: There are special circumstances where having multiple prescribers is appropriate (e.g., a pain crisis). Theme 3: A collaborative process to opioid cancer pain management would include real-time communication and negotiation between PCPs and oncology around who will handle opioid prescribing. Theme 4: Providers identified multiple barriers in coordinating cancer pain management across disciplines. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight how real-time negotiation about roles in opioid pain management is needed between interdisciplinary clinicians. Lack of cross-disciplinary role agreement may result in delays in clinically appropriate cancer pain management. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06747-z.

Background: COVID-19 significantly impacted care delivery to seriously ill patients, especially around including family and caregivers in patient care. Aim: Based on routinely collected bereaved family reports, actionable practices were identified to maintain and improve care in the last month of life, with potential application to all seriously ill patients. Design: The Veterans Health Administration’s Bereaved Family Survey is used nationally to gather routine feedback from families and caregivers of recent in-patient decedents; the survey includes multiple structured items as well as space for open narrative responses. The responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with dual review. Setting/participants: Between February 2020 and March 2021, there were 5372 responses to the free response questions of which 1000 (18.6%) responses were randomly selected. The 445 (44.5%) responses from 377 unique individuals included actionable practices. Results: Bereaved family members and caregivers identified four opportunities with a total of 32 actionable practices. Opportunity 1: Facilitate the use of video communication, included four actionable practices. Opportunity 2: Provide timely and accurate responses to family concerns, included 17 actionable practices. Opportunity 3: Accommodate family/caregiver visitation, included eight actionable practices. Opportunity 4: Offer physical presence to the patient when family/caregivers are unable to visit, included three actionable practices. Conclusion: The findings from this quality improvement project are applicable during a pandemic, but also translate to improving the care of seriously ill patients in other circumstances, such as when family members or caregivers are geographically distant from a loved one during the last weeks of life.

Context The Veterans Health Administration (VA) National Center for Ethics in Healthcare implemented the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative, including policy and practice standards, clinician communication training, a documentation template, and central implementation support to foster advance care planning via goals-of-care conversations for seriously ill veterans in 2014, spreading nationally to other Veterans Health Affairs (VA) sites in 2017. Objectives Our goal was to describe the range of early implementation experiences among the pilot sites, and compare them with spread sites that implemented LSTDI about two years later, identifying cross-site best practices and pitfalls. Methods We conducted semistructured interviews with 32 key stakeholders from 12 sites to identify cross-site best practices and pitfalls related to implementation. Results Three primary implementation themes emerged: organizational readiness for transformation, importance of champions, and time and resources needed to achieve implementation. Each theme's barriers and facilitators highlighted variability in success based on complexity in terms of vertical hierarchy and horizontal cross-role/cross-clinic relationships. Conclusion Learning health care systems need multilevel interdisciplinary implementation approaches to support communication about serious illness, from broad-based system-level training and education to build communication skills, to focusing on characteristics of successful individual champions who listen to critics and are tenacious in addressing concerns.

PURPOSE: Monitoring and improving the quality of palliative and end-of-life cancer care remain pressing needs in the United States. Among existing measures that assess the quality of palliative and end-of-life care, many operationalize similar concepts. We identified existing palliative care process measures and synthesized these measures to aid stakeholder prioritization that will facilitate health system implementation in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We reviewed MEDLINE/PubMed-indexed articles for process quality measures related to palliative and end-of-life care for patients with advanced cancer, supplemented by expert input. Measures were inductively grouped into “measure concepts” and higher-level groups. RESULTS: Literature review identified 226 unique measures from 23 measure sources, which we grouped into 64 measure concepts within 12 groups. Groups were advance care planning (11 measure concepts), pain (7), dyspnea (9), palliative care–specific issues (6), other specific symptoms (17), comprehensive assessment (2), symptom assessment (1), hospice/palliative care referral (1), spiritual care (2), mental health (5), information provision (2), and culturally appropriate care (1). CONCLUSION: Measure concepts covered the spectrum of care from acute symptom management to advance care planning and psychosocial needs, with variability in the number of measure concepts per group. This taxonomy of process quality measure concepts can be used by health systems seeking stakeholder input to prioritize targets for improving palliative and end-of-life care quality in patients with advanced cancer.

Mentors at seven United States and Australian academic institutions partnered with seven leading Indian academic palliative care and cancer centers to undertake a program combining remote and in-person mentorship, didactic instruction, and project-based learning in quality improvement. From its inception in 2017 to 2020, the Promoting Assessment and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) Program conducted three cohorts for capacity building of 22 Indian palliative care and cancer programs. Indian leadership established a Mumbai training hub in 2019 with philanthropic support, Quality Improvement Hub (e.g., QI-Hub) India. In 2020 the project which now focuses on both palliative care and cancer teams as EQuIP-India. EQuIP now leads ongoing Indian national collaboratives and training in quality improvement and is integrated into India's National Cancer Grid. PC-PAICE demonstrates a feasible model of international collaboration and capacity building in palliative care and cancer quality improvement. It is one of several networked, blended learning approaches with potential for rapid scaling of evidence-based practices.

BACKGROUND: Current pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aimed to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized studies published after 2009. Included studies had to report patient-reported pain outcomes (e.g., BPI total pain, GCPS pain intensity, RMDQ pain-related disability), include primary care as an intervention setting, and demonstrate some evidence of teamwork or teaming; specifically, they needed to involve at least two clinicians interacting with each other and with patients in an ongoing process over at least two timepoints. We assessed study quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We narratively synthesized intervention team structures and processes, comparing among interventions that reported a clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported pain outcomes defined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: We included 13 total interventions in our review, of which eight reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported pain outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. We identified the role of a care manager as a common structural feature of the interventions with some clinical effect on patient-reported pain. The team processes involving clinicians varied across interventions reporting clinically improved pain outcomes. However, when analyzing team processes involving patients, six of the interventions with some clinical effect on pain relied on pre-scheduled phone calls for continuous patient follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that interdisciplinary interventions incorporating teamwork and teaming can improve patient-reported pain outcomes in comparison to usual care. Given the current evidence, future interventions might prioritize care managers and mechanisms for patient follow-up to help bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and the implementation of interdisciplinary, team-based chronic pain care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07255-w.

Objectives: Veterans Health Administration encourages auricular acupuncture (Battlefield Acupuncture/BFA) as a nonpharmacologic approach to pain management. Qualitative reports highlighted a “gateway hypothesis”: providing BFA can lead to additional nonpharmacologic treatments. This analysis examines subsequent use of traditional acupuncture. Research Design: Cohort study of Veterans treated with BFA and a propensity score matched comparison group with a 3-month follow-up period to identify subsequent use of traditional acupuncture. Matching variables included pain, comorbidity, and demographics, with further adjustment in multivariate regression analysis. Subjects: We identified 41,234 patients who used BFA across 130 Veterans Health Administration medical facilities between October 1, 2016 and March 31, 2019. These patients were matched 2:1 on Veterans who used VA care but not BFA during the same period resulting in a population of 24,037 BFA users and a comparison cohort of 40,358 non-BFA users. Patients with prior use of traditional acupuncture were excluded. Results: Among Veterans receiving BFA, 9.5% subsequently used traditional acupuncture compared with 0.9% of non-BFA users (P

Objective Screening for pain in routine care is one of the efforts that the Veterans Health Administration has adopted in its national pain management strategy. We aimed to understand patients’ perspectives and preferences about the experience of being screened for pain in primary care. Design Semistructured interviews captured patient perceptions and preferences of pain screening, assessment, and management. Subjects We completed interviews with 36 patients: 29 males and seven females ranging in age from 28 to 94 years from three geographically distinct VA health care systems. Methods We evaluated transcripts using constant comparison and identified emergent themes. Results Theme 1: Pain screening can “determine the tone of the examination”; Theme 2: Screening can initiate communication about pain; Theme 3: Screening can facilitate patient recall and reflection; Theme 4: Screening for pain may help identify under-reported psychological pain, mental distress, and suicidality; Theme 5: Patient recommendations about how to improve screening for pain. Conclusion Our results indicate that patients perceive meaningful, positive impacts of routine pain screening that as yet have not been considered in the literature. Specifically, screening for pain may help capture mental health concerns that may otherwise not emerge.

Little is known about the relationship between primary care nurses' work environment and burnout, particularly in settings where patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) have been implemented.To investigate the relationship between PCMH nurses' work environment and burnout.Multivariable analyses were performed using two waves of survey data from PCMH registered nurses (RNs; n = 170) and PCMH licensed vocational nurses (LVNs; n = 181) in 23 primary care clinics.True collaboration was inversely associated with PCMH RN burnout (b = -2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.29, -0.08, p.01). Meaningful recognition was inversely associated with PCMH LVN burnout (b = -5.1, 95% CI = -8.36, -1.82, p.01). In models with all nurses, RN (vs. LVN) position was associated with higher levels of burnout (b = 6.2, 95% CI = 2.47, 9.84, p.01).This study highlights the important role of the work environment in reducing PCMH nurse burnout. Strategies to foster team collaboration and meaningful recognition should be investigated to reduce PCMH nurse burnout.

Context Signature informed consent (SIC) is a part of a Veterans Health Administration ethics initiative for patient education and shared decision making with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Historically, patients with cancer-related pain receiving LTOT are exempt from this process. Objectives Our objective is to understand patients' and providers' perspectives on using SIC for LTOT in patients with cancer-related pain. Methods Semistructured interviews with 20 opioid prescribers and 20 patients who were prescribed opioids at two large academically affiliated Veterans Health Administration Medical Centers. We used a combination of deductive and inductive approaches in content analysis to produce emergent themes. Results Potential advantages of SIC are that it can clarify and help patients comprehend LTOT risks and benefits, provide clear upfront boundaries and expectations, and involve the patient in shared decision making. Potential disadvantages of SIC include time delay to treatment, discouragement from recommended opioid use, and impaired trust in the patient-provider relationship. Providers and patients have misconceptions about the definition of SIC. Providers and patients question if SIC for LTOT is really informed consent. Providers and patients advocate for strategies to improve comprehension of SIC content. Providers had divergent perspectives on exemptions from SIC. Oncologists want SIC for LTOT to be tailored for patients with cancer. Conclusion Provider and patient interviews highlight various aspects about the advantages and disadvantages of requiring SIC for LTOT in cancer-related pain. Tailoring SIC for LTOT to be specific to cancer-related concerns and to have an appropriate literacy level are important considerations.

ImportanceCommunication about patients’ goals and planned and potential treatment is central to advance care planning. Undertaking or confirming advance care plans is also essential to preoperative preparation, particularly among patients who are frail or will undergo high-risk surgery.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between patient risk of hospitalization or death and goals-of-care conversations documented with a completed Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decisions Initiative note among veterans undergoing surgery.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study included 190 040 veterans who underwent operations between January 1, 2017, and February 28, 2020. Statistical analysis took place from November 1, 2021, to November 17, 2022.ExposurePatient risk of hospitalization or death, evaluated with a Care Assessment Need (CAN) score (range, 0-99, with a higher score representing a greater risk of hospitalization or death), dichotomized as less than 80 or 80 or more.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPreoperative LST note completion (30 days before or on the day of surgery) or no LST note completion within the 30-day preoperative period prior to or on the day of the index operation.ResultsOf 190 040 veterans (90.8% men; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [11.9] years), 3.8% completed an LST note before surgery, and 96.2% did not complete an LST note. In the groups with and without LST note completion before surgery, most were aged between 65 and 84 years (62.1% vs 56.7%), male (94.3% vs 90.7%), and White (82.2% vs 78.3%). Compared with patients who completed an LST note before surgery, patients who did not complete an LST note before surgery tended to be female (9.3% vs 5.7%), Black (19.2% vs 15.7%), married (50.2% vs 46.5%), and in better health (Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0, 25.9% vs 15.2%); to have a lower risk of hospitalization or death (CAN score Conclusions and RelevanceDespite increasing LST note implementation, a minority of veterans completed an LST note preoperatively. Although doing so was more common among veterans with an elevated risk compared with those at lower risk, improving proactive communication and documentation of goals, particularly among higher-risk veterans, is needed. Doing so may promote goal-concordant surgical care and outcomes.

ObjectiveEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee occupational health (EOH) providers were tasked with assuming a central role in coordinating employee COVID-19 screening and clearance for duty, representing entirely novel EOH responsibilities. In a rapid qualitative needs assessment, we aimed to identify learnings from the field to support the vastly expanding role of EOH providers in a national healthcare system.MethodsWe employed rapid qualitative analysis of key informant interviews in a maximal variation sample on the parameters of job type, rural versus urban and provider gender. We interviewed 21 VHA EOH providers between July and December 2020. This sample represents 15 facilities from diverse regions of the USA (large, medium and small facilities in the Mid-Atlantic; medium sites in the South; large facilities in the West and Pacific Northwest).ResultsFive interdependent needs included: (1) infrastructure to support employee population management, including tools that facilitate infection control measures such as contact tracing (eg, employee-facing electronic health records and coordinated databases); (2) mechanisms for information sharing across settings (eg, VHA listserv), especially for changing policy and protocols; (3) sufficiently resourced staffing using detailing to align EOH needs with human resource capital; (4) connected and resourced local and national leaders; and (5) strategies to support healthcare worker mental health.Our identified facilitators for EOH assuming new challenging and dynamically changing roles during COVID-19 included: (A) training or access to expertise; (B) existing mechanisms for information sharing; (C) flexible and responsive staffing; and (D) leveraging other institutional expertise not previously affiliated with EOH (eg, chaplains to support bereavement).ConclusionsOur needs assessment highlights local and system level barriers and facilitators of EOH assuming expanded roles during COVID-19. Integrating changes both within and across systems and with alignment of human capital will enable EOH preparedness for future challenges.

Background As of August 2021 up to 30% of Americans were uncertain about taking the COVID-19 vaccine. Some healthcare personnel (HCP) also delayed or declined vaccination. Objective Identify barriers and facilitators of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) HCP vaccination program Design: Key informant interviews with employee occupational health (EOH) providers Participants: 38 VHA EOH providers representing 26 of VHA’s regionally diverse healthcare systems. Approach: Thematic analysis elucidated 5 key themes, and specific strategies recommended by EOH Key Results: Implementation themes included: 1) Leverage diverse skillsets through multidisciplinary effort, specifically COVID-19 vaccination teams with clear goals/roles. 2) “Focus like a laser”: invest in processes and align resources with priorities, including specific strategies of: creating detailed processes, eg. logistics plan to prevent wastage and allocate excess vaccine doses; addressing time trade-offs for personnel involved in vaccine clinics by suspending everything non-essential; designating process/authority to shift personnel where needed; and proactively involving leaders to support resource allocation/alignment. 3) Expect and accommodate vaccine buy-in occurring over time, including specific strategies of: preparing for some HCP slow buy-in; aligning buy-in facilitation with identities and motivation; encouraging word-of-mouth and hyper-local testimonials. 4) Overcome misinformation through trustworthy communication, with specific strategies including: tailoring communication to individuals and addressing COVID vaccines “in every encounter”; leveraging proactive institutional messaging (e.g., townhalls, Q&As) to reinforce information; inviting bi-directional conversations about hesitancy. 5) Use existing and newly developed communication channels to foster sharing and learning across teams and sites, eg. a national VHA EOH listserv. Conclusions Expecting deliberation allows systems to prepare for complex distribution logistics, and conversations that are trustworthy, bi-directional, and identity-aligned - overall supporting mandate goals. Ideally, organizations 1) provide time for conversations about vaccines; those conversations would 2) address individual concerns and foster bi-directional shared decision-making, 3) be informed by identity-based motivation, and 4) delivered by identity-concordant individuals.

Background The population of patients with cancer requiring palliative care (PC) is on the rise in India. Family caregivers will be essential members of the care team in the provision of PC. Objective We aimed to characterize provider perspectives of the challenges that Indian families face in taking on a palliative caregiving role. Method Data for this analysis came from an evaluation of the PC-PAICE project, a series of quality improvement interventions for PC in India. We conducted 44 in-depth semi-structured interviews with organizational leaders and clinical team members at seven geographically and structurally diverse settings. Through thematic content analysis, themes relating to the caregivers’ role were identified using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches. Result Contextual challenges to taking up the PC caregiving role included family members’ limited knowledge about PC and cancer, the necessity of training for caregiving responsibilities, and cultural preferences for pursuing curative treatments over palliative ones. Some logistical challenges include financial, time, and mental health limitations that family caregivers may encounter when navigating the expectations of taking on the caregiving role. Strategies to facilitate family buy-in for PC provision include adopting a family care model, connecting them to services provided by Non-Governmental Organizations, leveraging volunteers and social workers to foster PC awareness and training, and responding specifically to family’s requests. Conclusion Understanding and addressing the various challenges that families face in adopting the caregiver role are essential steps in the provision and expansion of PC in India. Locally initiated quality improvement projects can be a way to address these challenges based on the context.

Background Approximately one-third of women Veterans Health Administration (VHA) users have substance use disorders (SUD). Early identification of hazardous substance use in this population is critical for the prevention and treatment of SUD. We aimed to understand challenges to identifying women Veterans with hazardous substance use to improve future referral, evaluation, and treatment efforts. Methods Design: We conducted a secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with VHA interdisciplinary women’s SUD providers at VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System. Participants: Using purposive and snowball sampling we interviewed 17 VHA providers from psychology, social work, women’s health, primary care, and psychiatry. Approach: Our analytic approach was content analysis of provider perceptions of identifying hazardous substance use in women Veterans. Results Providers noted limitations across an array of existing identification methodologies employed to identify women with hazardous substance use and believed these limitations were abated through trusting provider-patient communication. Providers emphasized the need to have a process in place to respond to hazardous use when identified. Provider level factors, including provider bias, and patient level factors such as how they self-identify, may impact identification of women Veterans with hazardous substance use. Tailoring language to be sensitive to patient identity may help with identification in women Veterans with hazardous substance use or SUD who are not getting care in VHA but are eligible as well as those who are not eligible for care in VHA. Conclusions To overcome limitations of existing screening tools and processes of identifying and referring women Veterans with hazardous substance use to appropriate care, future efforts should focus on minimizing provider bias, building trust in patient-provider relationships, and accommodating patient identities.

The Life Sustaining Treatment Decision Initiative is a national effort by the Veterans Health Administration to ensure goals of care documentation occurs among all patients at high risk of life-threatening events.Examine likelihood to receive goals of care documentation and explore associations between documentation and perceived patient care experience at the individual and site level.Retrospective, quality improvement analysis of initiative pilot data from four geographically diverse Veterans Affairs (VA) sites (Fall 2014-Winter 2016) before national roll-out. Goals of care documentation according to gender, marital status, urban/rural status, race/ethnicity, age, serious health condition, and Care Assessment Needs scores. Association between goals of care documentation and perceived patient care experience analyzed based on Bereaved Family Survey outcomes of overall care, communication, and support.Veterans were more likely to have goals of care documentation if widowed, urban residents, and of white race. Patients older than 65-years and those with a higher Care Assessment Needs score were twice as likely as a frail patient to have goals of care documented. One pilot site demonstrated a positive association between documentation and perceived support. Pilot site was a statistically significant predictor of the occurrence of goals of care documentation and Bereaved Family Survey scores.Older and seriously ill patients were most likely to have goals of care documented. Association between a documented goals of care conversation and perceived patient care experience were largely unsupported. Site-level largely contributed to understanding the likelihood of documentation and care experience.

Background: The United States Veterans Health Administration National Center for Ethics in Health Care implemented the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Initiative throughout the Veterans Health Administration health care system in 2017. This policy encourages goals of care conversations, referring to conversations about patient’s treatment and end-of-life wishes for life-sustaining treatments, among Veterans with serious illnesses. A key component of the initiative is expanding interdisciplinary provider roles in having goals of care conversations. Aim: Use organizational role theory to explore medical center experiences with expanding interdisciplinary roles in the implementation of a goals of care initiative. Design: A qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. Setting/participants: Initial participants were recruited using purposive sampling of local medical center champions. Snowball sampling identified additional participants. Participants included thirty-one interdisciplinary providers from 12 geographically diverse initiative pilot and spread medical centers. Results: Five themes were identified. Expanding provider roles in goals of care conversations (1) involves organizational culture change; (2) is influenced by medical center leadership; (3) is supported by provider role readiness; (4) benefits from cross-disciplinary role agreement; and (5) can “overwhelm” providers. Conclusions: Organizational role theory is a helpful framework for exploring interdisciplinary roles in a goals of care initiative. Support and recognition of provider role expansion in goals of care conversations was important for the adoption of a goals of care initiative. Actionable strategies, including multi-level leadership support and the use of interdisciplinary champions, facilitate role change and have potential to strengthen uptake of a goals of care initiative.

Background: Pain and opioid management are core ambulatory palliative care skills. Existing literature on how to manage opioid misuse/use disorder excludes patients found in palliative care settings, such as individuals with serious illness or those at the end of life. Objectives: We conducted an exploratory study to: (1) Identify the challenges palliative care clinicians face when prescribing opioids in ambulatory settings and (2) explore factors that affect opioid decision-making. Methods: We recruited palliative care clinicians who prescribe opioids in ambulatory settings, which included open-ended questions and was conducted online. Results were analyzed qualitatively using a content analysis-based approach. Results: Eighty-three palliative care clinicians (mostly MDs/DOs) participated. Challenges faced when prescribing opioids included clinician differences in approach to care (eg, transitioning from another clinician with more permissive opioid prescribing), medication access (eg, inadequate pharmacy supply), resource constraints (eg, access to mental health and addiction expertise), managing problems outside the typical palliative care scope (eg addiction). Participants also discussed factors that influenced their opioid prescribing decisions, such as opioid-related harms and risks that they need to weigh; they also spoke about the necessity of considering other factors like the patient’s environment, disease, treatment, and prognosis. Conclusion: This study highlights the challenge of opioid management in patients with serious illness, particularly when misuse or substance use disorder is present, and suggests areas for future research focus. Our next step will be to establish consensus on approaches to opioid prescribing decision-making and policy in seriously ill patients presenting to ambulatory palliative care.

Background The Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care is organized as a Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) that is based on continuity management of patient panels by interdisciplinary “teamlets” consisting of primary care providers, nurses, and clerical associates. While the teamlets are envisioned as interdisciplinary in this model, teamlet members may continue to report separately to middle management supervisors within their respective disciplines. Little is known about the role of middle managers in medical home implementation; therefore, the study purpose is to examine and characterize teamlet members’ perceptions of middle managers’ role in primary care operations and teamlet functioning in an outpatient setting. Methods This study applied a formal qualitative data collection method and analysis based on semi-structured interviews of 79 frontline interdisciplinary staff (primary care providers, nurses, and clerical associates) in VA Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) teamlets. Interviews were analyzed using a method of constant comparison. Results Teamlet members recognize that their supervising middle managers are essential to daily functioning of PACT teamlets in terms of clarifying roles and responsibilities, setting expectations, providing coverage strategies, supporting conflict resolution, and facilitating teamlet-initiated innovation. Teamlet members identified challenges when middle manager involvement was lacking. Conclusion Within a multilevel system, frontline interdisciplinary staff continue to perceive the need for leadership by middle managers from their own professional disciplines for solving interdisciplinary problems, setting role-specific schedules and expectations, and fostering innovation. As such, greater focus on the structure and training of middle managers for participation in PCMH models is needed.

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.

BackgroundPatients with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain often struggle with physical, emotional, and psychological problems not easily addressed by a single clinician. Current pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aim to describe how we intend to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings. Methods We will include randomized studies and systematic reviews of interventions involving teaming that address chronic or cancer-related pain. A systematic review of articles published in English and after 2009 in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library will be conducted. The primary outcome will be a numeric, patient-reported pain score. Extracted data will include details about the team structures and processes used in the interdisciplinary interventions based in primary care. DiscussionThe intended systematic review will examine interventions that incorporate teamwork or teaming to manage chronic pain and will synthesize evidence as to which team structures and processes may help facilitate improved pain management, and thus improved pain outcomes. Results of this systematic review may help inform how to organize teams within primary care that will be most beneficial to chronic pain patients and highlight opportunities for future, high-quality randomized controlled trials exploring teaming models in primary care.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO #CRD42020191467

Purpose The potentially vast supply of unused opioids in Americans’ homes has long been a public health concern. We conducted a needs assessment of how Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities address and manage disposal of unused opioid medications to identify opportunities for improvement. Methods We used rapid qualitative content analysis methods with team consensus to synthesize findings. Data were collected in 2 waves: (1) semistructured interviews with 19 providers in October 2019 and (2) structured questions to 21 providers in March to April of 2020 addressing how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed disposal priorities. Results While many diverse strategies have been tried in the VA, we found limited standardization of advice on opioid disposal and practices nationally. Providers offered the following recommendations: target specific patient scenarios for enhanced disposal efforts, emphasize mail-back envelopes, keep recommendations to providers and patients consistent and reinforce existing guidance, explore virtual modalities to monitor disposal activity, prioritize access to viable disposal strategies, and transition from pull to push communication. These themes were identified in the fall of 2019 and remained salient in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion A centralized VA national approach could include proactive communication with patients and providers, interventions tailored to specific settings and populations, and facilitated access to disposal options. All of the above strategies are feasible in the context of an extended period of social distancing.

Background: Improving primary care opioid prescribing is a public health priority in many western nations. Governments, policymakers and key stakeholders are intervening on multiple levels to address patient, prescriber and systems factors contributing to opioid over-prescription in primary care. Many opioid prescribing interventions specifically target primary care providers (PCPs); however, the overall effectiveness of these interventions is not known. Identifying effective components of PCP-targeted behaviour change interventions may help inform scalability and translation of prescribing interventions across countries and varying primary healthcare settings. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of provider-targeted interventions to improve opioid prescribing in primary care. This protocol reports the methods of the proposed narrative synthesis review that will be guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Methods: The study will follow Cochrane methods for conducting a narrative synthesis. Reporting is compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocols. The review will conduct searches in PubMed, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases for studies published in the English language from 2010 onwards. Reference lists of accepted articles will be also screened for additional studies meeting inclusion. Any opioid prescribing behaviour will be measured as an outcome. Intervention components will be mapped to domains of the TDF. No geographic limits will be applied. All stages of screening and data extraction will involve a dual review with gold standard adjudication. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used to evaluate quality and risk. Discussion: This review is being conducted in strict adherence to Cochrane principles. The protocol was submitted for registration to Prospero prior to publication for transparency and to avoid duplication of research. Formal ethics approval is not required for this research. The findings of this review will inform the delivery and implementation of PCP targeted opioid prescribing interventions. Findings will be disseminated to a wide range of stakeholders involved in quality improvement, prescribing interventions, education and training; professional groups, policymakers, researchers and PCPs.Systematic review registration: Submitted to Prospero 22 December 2020; pending registration

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: To inform priorities for palliative care quality monitoring using natural language processing applied to clinical notes in electronic health records, we aimed to describe expert stakeholder and patient/caregiver conceptualizations of high‐quality palliative care for patients receiving care for advanced cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted two modified RAND‐UCLA appropriateness panels to prioritize palliative care process quality measures relevant to patients with advanced cancer from the perspective of cancer patients/caregivers and cancer palliative care expert health system stakeholders. We identified 64 candidate quality measures via a measure scan. Next, expert panelists discussed and prioritized quality measures. To facilitate ease of comprehension, we had patients/caregivers discuss, evaluate, and prioritize a sub‐set of 21 quality measures highly rated by the expert panel. Panel discussions (8 hours each) were recorded, transcribed, and independently double‐coded in Atlas.ti using an a priori framework for palliative symptom care: 1) experience of illness/symptoms, 2) screening/assessment/diagnosis 3) management/plan/treatment, 4) iterative management (follow‐up), and 5) documentation, as well as one emergent theme: 6) equity. Quotations were examined separately within each code and themes were generated through team discussion until consensus was reached. POPULATION STUDIED: The panels were composed of ten palliative care expert stakeholders: 7 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 social worker) and nine patients/caregivers with cancer experience. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patients/caregivers and expert stakeholders contributed different perspectives of what high quality symptom care means for advanced cancer patients. Patients/caregivers emphasized the need for comprehensive and proactive screening and assessment, especially for pain and mental health symptoms, due to reluctance to being perceived as “weak” and beliefs that there is “not a heck of a lot [clinicians] can do” to address their symptoms. Patients/caregivers valued continuity and communication among their many clinical care providers as well as acknowledgment or discussion of the written information they provided (e.g., on a symptom screening form). Expert stakeholders emphasized the need for symptom screening to be tied to management plans, rather than measuring them separately, as well as the need to treat symptoms to patient satisfaction rather than an “artificial number.” Expert stakeholders expressed uncertainty about the best way to ask about or acknowledge symptoms, like fatigue, that have few management options. Patients/caregivers and expert stakeholders agreed on the need to prioritize “iterative” management to monitor the efficacy of treatment plans and the need to monitor differences in care quality provided to medically underserved and minority populations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients contribute a unique perspective to quality measure prioritization, which is typically the domain of clinicians and administrators. Patients and caregivers took a “systems view” of quality, based on their experiences interacting with clinicians inside and outside VA. Expert stakeholders, in contrast, took a “one on one” view of quality, emphasizing measurability of the aspects of care under the control of a single clinician. Incorporating the perspective of patients/caregivers highlighted the importance of proactive symptom screening for providing high quality palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY OR PRACTICE: Future efforts to automate quality monitoring should find ways to incorporate and operationalize patient conceptualizations of healthcare quality. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs.

Importance: Quality measures of palliative and end-of-life care relevant to patients with advanced cancer have been developed, but few are in routine use. It is unclear which of these measures are most important for providing patient- and family-centered care and have high potential for improving quality of care. Objective: To prioritize process quality measures for assessing delivery of patient- and family-centered palliative and end-of-life cancer care in US Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facilities. Design, Setting, Participants: A panel of 10 palliative and cancer care expert stakeholders (7 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 social worker) rated process quality measure concepts before and after a 1-day meeting. Measures: Panelists rated 64 measure concepts on a nine-point scale on: (1) importance to providing patient- and family-centered care, and (2) potential for quality improvement (QI). Panelists also nominated five highest priority measure concepts ("top 5") on each attribute. Results: Panelists rated most measure concepts (54 premeeting, 56 post-meeting) as highly important to patient- and family-centered care (median rating ≥7). Considerably fewer (17 premeeting, 22 post-meeting) were rated as having high potential for QI. Measure concepts having postpanel median ratings ≥7 and nominated by one or more panelists as "top 5" on either attribute comprised a shortlist of 20 measure concepts. Conclusions: A panel of expert stakeholders helped prioritize 64 measure concepts into a shortlist of 20. Half of the shortlisted measures were related to communication about patient preferences and decision making, and half were related to symptom assessment and treatment.

Objectives: Nonpharmacological options to treat pain are in demand, in part to address the opioid crisis. One such option is acupuncture. Battlefield acupuncture (BFA) is an auricular needling protocol currently used to treat pain in the Veterans Health Administration. We aimed to identify the advantages and disadvantages of BFA from providers’ perspectives. Methods: We rely on an inductive qualitative approach to explore provider perceptions through thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with 43 BFA providers across the nation. Results: We identified the following themes. Disadvantages included: (1) clinical guidelines are insufficient; (2) patients often request multiple BFA visits from providers; (3) BFA can be uncomfortable; (4) BFA may not be an effective treatment option unless it can be provided “on demand”; and (5) BFA can promote euphoria, which can have deleterious consequences for patient self-care. Perceived advantages included: (1) BFA can simultaneously effectively control pain while reducing opioid use; (2) BFA may alleviate the pain that has been unsuccessfully treated by conventional methods; (3) BFA gives providers a treatment option to offer patients with substance use disorder; (4) BFA helps build a trusting patient-provider relationship; (5) BFA can create the opportunity for hope. Conclusions: Providers perceive BFA to have many benefits, both clinical and relational, including ways in which it may have utility in addressing the current opioid crisis. BFA is easy to deliver and has potential clinical and relational utility. Efforts to better understand effectiveness are warranted.

Objectives Veterans Health Administration (VHA) launched a national initiative to train providers in a specific, protocolized auricular acupuncture treatment (also called Battlefield Acupuncture or BFA) as a nonpharmacological approach to pain management. This evaluation assessed the real-world effectiveness of BFA on immediate pain relief and identified subgroups of patients for whom BFA is most effective. Research design In a cross-sectional cohort study, electronic medical record data for 11,406 Veterans treated with BFA at 57 VHA medical centers between October 2016 and September 2018 was analyzed. The multivariate analysis incorporated data on pain history, change in pain level on an 11-point scale, complications, and demographic information. Methods A total of 11,406 Veterans were treated with BFA at 57 VHA medical centers between October 2016 and September 2018 and had effectiveness data recorded in their electronic medical record. Results More than 3 quarters experienced immediate decreases in pain following administration of BFA, with nearly 60% reported experiencing a minimal clinically important difference in pain intensity. The average decrease in pain intensity was -2.5 points (SD=2.2) at the initial BFA treatment, and -2.2 points (SD=2.0) at subsequent treatments. BFA was effective across a wide range of Veterans with many having preexisting chronic pain, or physical, or psychological comorbid conditions. Veterans with opioid use in the year before BFA experienced less improvement, with pain intensity scores improving more among Veterans who had not recently used opioids. Conclusion VHA's rapid expansion of training providers to offer BFA as a nonpharmacological approach to pain management has benefited many Veterans.