Search

BackgroundGiven persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination.ObjectiveThe Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics.DesignMulti-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative.ParticipantsTwelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs.InterventionsWe used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months.Main measuresWe quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects.Key resultsN = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone.ConclusionAlthough coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.

ObjectiveTo compare health care system problems or "hassles" experienced by Veterans receiving VA health care only versus those receiving dual care from both VA and non-VA community providers.Data sourcesWe collected survey data in 2017-2018 from 2444 randomly selected Veterans with four or more primary care visits in the prior year at one of 12 VA primary care clinics located in four geographically diverse regions of the United States.Study designWe used baseline surveys from the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching quality improvement project to explore Veterans' experience of hassles (dependent variable), source of health care, self-rated physical and mental health, and sociodemographics.Data collectionParticipants responded to mailed surveys by mail, telephone, or online.Principal findingsThe number of reported hassles ranged from 0 to 16; 79 percent of Veterans reported experiencing one or more hassles. Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and self-rated physical and mental health, zero-inflated negative binominal regression indicated that dual care users experienced more hassles than VA-only users (adjusted predicted average 5.5 [CI: 5.2, 5.8] vs 4.3 [CI: 4.1, 4.6] hassles [P

BackgroundImproving care coordination is a key priority for many healthcare systems. However, initiatives to improve care coordination are complex to implement and have produced mixed results. A better understanding of how to craft and support implementation of effective care coordination strategies is needed.ObjectiveTo identify and understand the challenges and factors encountered by Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) staff in performing care coordination tasks in outpatient clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA).DesignQualitative study using semi-structured formative evaluation interviews.ParticipantsFourteen interviews with 18 clinical frontline managers and staff from 12 clinic sites across five VA health systems.InterventionsThis paper reports on baseline data collected for the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project. CTAC aims to improve patients' experience of care coordination within VA primary care and between PACT and other outpatient and community settings.ApproachWe conducted pre-implementation telephone interviews with frontline managers and staff, primarily nurse managers.Key resultsPACT staff described challenges in aligning care coordination priorities across different levels of the VA system, including staff, patients, and leadership. Additionally, PACT staff noted challenges coordinating care both within and outside the VA, and identified resource barriers impeding their care coordination efforts. To address these challenges, staff made several recommendations for improvement, including (1) contingency staffing to address staff burnout; (2) additional PACT training for new staff; (3) clarification of care coordination roles and responsibilities; and (4) and care coordination initiatives that align both with centrally initiated care coordination programs and frontline needs.ConclusionIn the VA and similarly complex healthcare systems, our findings suggest the need for care coordination strategies that are buttressed by a system-level vision for care coordination, backed up by clear roles and responsibilities for information exchange between primary care staff and other settings, and multidimensional accountability metrics that encompass patient-, staff-, and system-level goals.

Although family caregivers are increasingly recognized for their essential role in helping vulnerable adults live in the community for as long as possible, their priorities and perspectives have not been well‐integrated into quality assessments of home‐ and community‐based services (HCBS). Our overall goal was to identify measurement gaps to guide monitoring and improve HCBS. Caregiver‐specific measurement priorities were identified during a multi‐level stakeholder engagement process that included 34 Veterans, 24 caregivers, and 39 facility leaders, clinicians, and staff across four VA healthcare systems. We mapped items from national quality measure sets for HCBS identified during an environmental scan onto the stakeholder‐identified measurement priorities. Only 5 of 11 non‐VA measure sets and three of four VA measure sets explicitly included caregiver‐specific items that were aligned with or relevant to stakeholders' measurement priorities. Six of 14 stakeholder‐identified priorities were not reflected in any measure sets, such as those that explicitly assess caregiver‐reported experience with services that directly or indirectly support their role as caregivers within HCBS. Although family caregivers fulfill a critical role in helping adults with complex medical needs live independently for as long as possible, their priorities and perspectives have not been well‐integrated into quality assessments of HCBS. Measures that acknowledge caregivers' roles and incorporate their priorities can help healthcare systems to better monitor and improve HCBS quality, thereby enabling Veterans to remain in the community as long as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Empowering Veterans to age in place is a Department of Veterans Affairs priority. Family or unpaid caregivers play an important role in supporting Veterans to achieve this goal. Effectively meeting the needs of Veterans and caregivers requires identifying unmet needs and relevant gaps in resources to address those needs. Methods: Using a modified Socio‐Ecological Model, we developed a prospective longitudinal panel design survey. We randomly selected 20,000 community‐dwelling Veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), across five VHA sites. We oversampled Veterans with a higher predicted 2‐year long‐term institutional care (LTIC) risk. Veterans were mailed a packet containing a Veteran survey and a caregiver survey, to be answered by their caregiver if they had one. The Veteran survey assessed the following health‐related domains: physical, mental, social determinants of health, and caregiver assistance. Caregivers completed questions regarding their demographic factors, caregiving activities, impact of caregiving, use of VA and non‐VA services, and caregiver support resources. Follow‐up surveys will be repeated twice at 12‐month intervals for the same respondents. This article describes the HERO CARE survey protocol, content, and response rates. Results: We received responses from 8,056 Veterans and 3,579 caregivers between July 2021 and January 2022, with 95.6% being received via mail. Veteran respondents were mostly males (96.5%), over 65 years of age (94.9%), married (55.0%), Non‐Hispanic White (75.2%), and residing in urban areas (80.7%). Conclusions: This longitudinal survey is unique in its comprehensive assessment of domains relevant to older Veterans stratified by LTIC risk and their caregivers, focusing on social determinants, caregiver support, and the use of caregiver support resources. Survey data will be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and VA data. The results of this study will inform better planning of non‐institutional care services and policy for Veterans and their caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Given persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination. Objective: The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics. Design: Multi-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative. Participants: Twelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs. Interventions: We used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months. Main Measures: We quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects. Key Results: N = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1–2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (− 0.42 (− 0.76, − 0.08) non-coached; − 0.40 (− 0.75, − 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (− 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone. Conclusion: Although coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Relatively little is known regarding to what extent community-based primary care physicians are encountering post-deployment health care needs among veterans of the Afghanistan or Iraq conflicts and their family members. Methods This pilot study conducted a cross-sectional survey of 37 primary care physicians working at small urban and suburban clinics belonging to a practice-based research network in the south central region of Texas. Results Approximately 80% of the responding physicians reported caring for patients who have been deployed to the Afghanistan or Iraq war zones, or had a family member deployed. Although these physicians noted a variety of conditions related to physical trauma, mental illnesses and psychosocial disruptions such as marital, family, financial, and legal problems appeared to be even more prevalent among their previously deployed patients and were also noted among family members of deployed veterans. Conclusions Community-based primary care physicians should be aware of common post-deployment health conditions and the resources that are available to meet these needs.

Abstract Background Efforts to improve the care of patients with chronic disease in primary care settings have been mixed. Application of a complex adaptive systems framework suggests that this may be because implementation efforts often focus on education or decision support of individual providers, and not on the dynamic system as a whole. We believe that learning among clinic group members is a particularly important attribute of a primary care clinic that has not yet been well-studied in the health care literature, but may be related to the ability of primary care practices to improve the care they deliver. To better understand learning in primary care settings by developing a scale of learning in primary care clinics based on the literature related to learning across disciplines, and to examine the association between scale responses and chronic care model implementation as measured by the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) scale. Methods Development of a scale of learning in primary care setting and administration of the learning and ACIC scales to primary care clinic members as part of the baseline assessment in the ABC Intervention Study. All clinic clinicians and staff in forty small primary care clinics in South Texas participated in the survey. Results We developed a twenty-two item learning scale, and identified a five-item subscale measuring the construct of reciprocal learning (Cronbach alpha 0.79). Reciprocal learning was significantly associated with ACIC total and sub-scale scores, even after adjustment for clustering effects. Conclusions Reciprocal learning appears to be an important attribute of learning in primary care clinics, and its presence relates to the degree of chronic care model implementation. Interventions to improve reciprocal learning among clinic members may lead to improved care of patients with chronic disease and may be relevant to improving overall clinic performance.

Abstract Background Despite applications of models of care and organizational or system-level interventions to improve patient outcomes for chronic disease, consistent improvements have not been achieved. This may reflect a mismatch between the interventions and the nature of the settings in which they are attempted. The application of complex adaptive systems (CAS) framework to understand clinical systems and inform efforts to improve them may lead to more successful interventions. We performed a systematic review of interventions to improve outcomes of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) to examine whether interventions consistent with CAS are more likely to be effective. We then examine differences between interventions that are most effective for improving outcomes for patients with CHF versus previously published data for type 2 diabetes to explore the potential impact of the nature of the disease on the types of interventions that are more likely to be effective. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature between 1998 and 2008 of organizational interventions to improve care of patients with CHF. Two independent reviewers independently assessed studies that met inclusion criteria to determine whether each reported intervention reflected one or more CAS characteristics. The effectiveness of interventions was rated as either 0 (no effect), 0.5 (mixed effect), or 1.0 (effective) based on the type, number, and significance of reported outcomes. Fisher's exact test was used to examine the association between CAS characteristics and intervention effectiveness. Specific CAS characteristics associated with intervention effectiveness for CHF were contrasted with previously published data for type 2 diabetes. Results and discussion Forty-four studies describing 46 interventions met eligibility criteria. All interventions utilized at least one CAS characteristic, and 85% were either 'mixed effect' or 'effective' in terms of outcomes. The number of CAS characteristics present in each intervention was associated with effectiveness (p < 0.001), supporting the idea that interventions consistent with CAS are more likely to be effective. The individual CAS characteristics associated with CHF intervention effectiveness were learning, self-organization, and co-evolution, a finding different from our previously published analysis of interventions for diabetes. We suggest this difference may be related to the degree of uncertainty involved in caring for patients with diabetes versus CHF. Conclusion These results suggest that for interventions to be effective, they must be consistent with the CAS nature of clinical systems. The difference in specific CAS characteristics associated with intervention effectiveness for CHF and diabetes suggests that interventions must also take into account attributes of the disease.

Abstract Background Despite the development of several models of care delivery for patients with chronic illness, consistent improvements in outcomes have not been achieved. These inconsistent results may be less related to the content of the models themselves, but to their underlying conceptualization of clinical settings as linear, predictable systems. The science of complex adaptive systems (CAS), suggests that clinical settings are non-linear, and increasingly has been used as a framework for describing and understanding clinical systems. The purpose of this study is to broaden the conceptualization by examining the relationship between interventions that leverage CAS characteristics in intervention design and implementation, and effectiveness of reported outcomes for patients with Type II diabetes. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature on organizational interventions to improve care of Type II diabetes. For each study we recorded measured process and clinical outcomes of diabetic patients. Two independent reviewers gave each study a score that reflected whether organizational interventions reflected one or more characteristics of a complex adaptive system. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed by standardizing the scoring of the results of each study as 0 (no effect), 0.5 (mixed effect), or 1.0 (effective). Results Out of 157 potentially eligible studies, 32 met our eligibility criteria. Most studies were felt to utilize at least one CAS characteristic in their intervention designs, and ninety-one percent were scored as either "mixed effect" or "effective." The number of CAS characteristics present in each intervention was associated with effectiveness (p = 0.002). Two individual CAS characteristics were associated with effectiveness: interconnections between participants and co-evolution. Conclusion The significant association between CAS characteristics and effectiveness of reported outcomes for patients with Type II diabetes suggests that complexity science may provide an effective framework for designing and implementing interventions that lead to improved patient outcomes.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) suggests that linkages between primary care practices and community-based resources can improve health in lower income and minority patients, but examples of these are rare. We conducted a prospective, mixed-methods observational study to identify indicators of primary care–community linkage associated with the frequency of visits to community-based senior centers and improvements in diabetes-related outcomes among 149 new senior center members (72% Hispanic). We used semistructured interviews at baseline and 9-month follow-up, obtaining visit frequency from member software and clinical assessments including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from colocated primary care clinics. Members' discussion of their activities with their primary care providers (PCPs) was associated with increased visits to the senior centers, as well as diabetes-related improvements. Direct feedback from the senior centers to their PCPs was desired by the majority of members and may help to reinforce use of community resources for self-management support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]