Search

Background: High quality patient-clinician communication is widely advocated, but little is known about which health outcomes are associated with communication for patients with COPD.Methods: Using a cross-sectional study of 342 veterans enrolled in a randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the association of communication, measured with the quality of communication (QOC) instrument, with subject-reported quality of clinician care, breathing problem confidence, and general self-rated health. We measured these associations using general estimating equations and adjusted odds ratios (OR) of patient-reported outcomes associated with one-point changes in QOC scores.Results: Nearly one-half of the subjects reported receiving the best imaginable care (47%), whereas fewer reported being confident with their breathing problems all the time (29%) or in very good or excellent health (15%). General communication was associated with best-imagined quality of care (OR, 4.29; 95% CI, 2.84-6.48; P < .001) and confidence in dealing with breathing problems all the time (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.34-2.25; P < .001) but not general self-rated health (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92-1.55; P = .19). Specific clinician behaviors with larger associations with higher quality care included listening, caring, and attentiveness. The associations between general communication and quality care increased over time (P for interaction .03).Conclusions: Communication between patients and clinicians is associated with quality of care and confidence in dealing with breathing problems, and this association may change over time. Attention to specific communication strategies may lead to improvements in the care of patients with COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many organizations recommend clinicians use structured communication processes, referred to as "shared decision making," to improve patient-reported outcomes for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS)., Research Question: Which components of high-quality patient-centered communication are associated with decision regret and distress?, Study Design and Methods: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal, repeated measures, cohort study among patients undergoing lung cancer screening in three different healthcare systems. We surveyed participants using validated measures of decision regret, decision satisfaction, distress, and patient-clinician communication domains up to a year after the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for LCS. For longitudinal analyses, we applied a series of generalized estimating equations to measure the association of the "patient as person" communication domain, screening knowledge, and decision concordance with decision regret and distress., Results: When assessed 2-4 weeks after the LDCT, 202 (58.9%) and 8 (2.3%) of 343 total respondents reported mild and moderate/severe decision regret, respectively, while 29 (9.2%) participants of 315 total reported mild distress and 19 (6.0%) moderate or greater distress. The mean ± SD decision satisfaction scores (0 to 10 scale) were 9.82 ± 0.89, 9.08 ± 1.54, and 6.13 ± 3.40 among those with no, mild, and moderate/severe regret respectively. Distress scores remained low after the LDCT, even among those with nodules. Patient-centered communication domains were not associated with decision regret or distress., Interpretation: Patients undergoing LCS rarely experience moderate or greater decision regret and distress. Although many participants reported mild decision regret, most were very satisfied over the year after their LDCT for LCS. Communication processes were not associated with regret and distress, suggesting that it may be challenging for communication interventions to reduce the harms of LCS., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Many patients with early-stage lung cancer are not candidates for lobectomy because of various factors, with treatment options including sublobar resection or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Limited information exists regarding patient-centered outcomes after these treatments., Methods: Subjects with stage I-IIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at high risk for lobectomy who underwent treatment with sublobar resection or SBRT were recruited from five medical centers. Quality of life (QOL) was compared with the Short Form 8 (SF-8) for physical and mental health and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) surveys at baseline (pretreatment) and 7 days, 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months after treatment. Propensity score methods were used to control for confounders., Results: Of 337 subjects enrolled before treatment, 63% received SBRT. Among patients undergoing resection, 89% underwent minimally invasive video-assisted thoracic surgery or robot-assisted resection. Adjusted analyses showed that SBRT-treated patients had both higher physical health SF-8 scores (difference in differences [DID], 6.42; p = .0008) and FACT-L scores (DID, 2.47; p = .004) at 7 days posttreatment. Mental health SF-8 scores were not different at 7 days (p = .06). There were no significant differences in QOL at other time points, and all QOL scores returned to baseline by 12 months for both groups., Conclusions: SBRT is associated with better QOL immediately posttreatment compared with sublobar resection. However, both treatment groups reported similar QOL at later time points, with a return to baseline QOL. These findings suggest that sublobar resection and SBRT have a similar impact on the QOL of patients with early-stage lung cancer deemed ineligible for lobectomy., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

Many Veterans receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-purchased care from non-VA facilities but little is known about factors that Veterans consider for this choice. Between May 2020 and August 2021, we surveyed VA-purchased care-eligible VA patients about barriers and facilitators to choosing where to receive care. We examined the association between travel time to their VA facility and their choice of VA-purchased care (VA-paid health care received in non-VA settings) versus VA facility and whether this association was modified by distrust. We received 1,662 responses and 692 (42%) chose a VA facility. Eighty percent reported quality care was in their top three factors that influenced their decision. Respondents with the highest distrust and who lived >1 hr from the nearest VA facility had the lowest predicted probability (PP) of choosing VA (PP 15%; 95% confidence interval: 10%-20%). Veterans value quality of care. VA and other health care systems should consider patient-centered ways to improve and publicize quality and reduce distrust., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction: Lung cancer survival is improving in the United States. We investigated whether there was a similar trend within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States., Materials and Methods: Data from the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry were analyzed for temporal survival trends using Kaplan-Meier estimates and linear regression., Results: A total number of 54,922 Veterans were identified with lung cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017. Histologies were classified as non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (64.2%), small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (12.9%), and 'other' (22.9%). The proportion with stage I increased from 18.1% to 30.4%, while stage IV decreased from 38.9% to 34.6% (both P < .001). The 3-year overall survival (OS) improved for stage I (58.6% to 68.4%, P < .001), stage II (35.5% to 48.4%, P < .001), stage III (18.7% to 29.4%, P < .001), and stage IV (3.4% to 7.8%, P < .001). For NSCLC, the median OS increased from 12 to 21 months (P < .001), and the 3-year OS increased from 24.1% to 38.3% (P < .001). For SCLC, the median OS remained unchanged (8 to 9 months, P = .10), while the 3-year OS increased from 9.1% to 12.3% (P = .014). Compared to White Veterans, Black Veterans with NSCLC had similar OS (P = .81), and those with SCLC had higher OS (P = .003)., Conclusion: Lung cancer survival is improving within the VHA. Compared to White Veterans, Black Veterans had similar or higher survival rates. The observed racial equity in outcomes within a geographically and socioeconomically diverse population warrants further investigation to better understand and replicate this achievement in other healthcare systems., Competing Interests: Disclosure DM is a consultant and/or advisor for AstraZeneca, Delfi Diagnostics, Viewray, and Merck; is a scientific advisor for Lungevity Foundation and GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer; is co-director of the VA Greater Los Angeles Lung Precision Oncology Program; is on the scientific advisory board and owns stock options in Lung Life AI. DG is a founder of SwitchboardMD, is on the advisory board of Histowiz LLC, and owns stock in PortalBurner LLC, Histowiz LLC, and SwitchboardMD. JL is a board member of Rescue Lung Rescue Life and is Co-director of the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System Lung Cancer Screening Program. LS is a member of the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System Lung Cancer Screening Steering Committee and Vice Chair of Health Equity at Vanderbilt University Medical Center Radiology. CS is a Medical Director of the VAPORHCS lung nodule surveillance system, Director for the VISN 20 Centralized Lung Cancer Screening Program, and Chief Consultant for the VA National Center for Lung Cancer Screening. He does not receive additional remuneration for this role. He has a grant from the Oregon Health and Science University Knight Cancer Institute (KCI) to develop a nodule/lung cancer risk prediction model that includes working with a for-profit company, Optellum, Ltd. Neither he nor the KCI receive remuneration for this collaboration. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Health care organizations are increasingly developing systems to ensure patients with pulmonary nodules receive guideline-adherent care. Our goal was to determine patient and organization factors that are associated with radiologist adherence as well as clinician and patient concordance to 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines for incidental pulmonary nodule follow-up., Materials: Trained researchers abstracted data from the electronic health record from two Veterans Affairs health care systems for patients with incidental pulmonary nodules as identified by interpreting radiologists from 2008 to 2016., Methods: We classified radiology reports and patient follow-up into two categories. Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence was the agreement between the radiologist's recommendation in the computed tomography report and the 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines. Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance was agreement between patient follow-up and the guidelines. We calculated multivariable-adjusted predicted probabilities for factors associated with Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence and Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance., Results: Among 3150 patients, 69% of radiologist recommendations were adherent to 2005 Fleischner guidelines, 4% were more aggressive, and 27% recommended less aggressive follow-up. Overall, only 48% of patients underwent follow-up concordant with 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines, 37% had less aggressive follow-up, and 15% had more aggressive follow-up. Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence was associated with Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance with evidence for effect modification by health care system., Conclusion: Clinicians and patients seem to follow radiologists' recommendations but often do not obtain concordant follow-up, likely due to downstream differential processes in each health care system. Health care organizations need to develop comprehensive and rigorous tools to ensure high levels of appropriate follow-up for patients with pulmonary nodules., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a leader in generating transformational research across the cancer care continuum. Given the extensive body of cancer-related literature utilizing VHA data, our objectives are to: (1) describe the VHA data sources available for conducting cancer-related research, and (2) discuss examples of published cancer research using each data source., Methods: We identified commonly used data sources within the VHA and reviewed previously published cancer-related research that utilized these data sources. In addition, we reviewed VHA clinical and health services research web pages and consulted with a multidisciplinary group of cancer researchers that included hematologist/oncologists, health services researchers, and epidemiologists., Results: Commonly used VHA cancer data sources include the Veterans Affairs (VA) Cancer Registry System, the VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR), the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW)-Oncology Raw Domain (subset of data within the CDW), and the VA Cancer Care Cube (Cube). While no reference standard exists for cancer case ascertainment, the VACCR provides a systematic approach to ensure the complete capture of clinical history, cancer diagnosis, and treatment. Like many population-based cancer registries, a significant time lag exists due to constrained resources, which may make it best suited for historical epidemiologic studies. The CDW-Oncology Raw Domain and the Cube contain national information on incident cancers which may be useful for case ascertainment and prospective recruitment; however, additional resources may be needed for data cleaning., Conclusions: The VHA has a wealth of data sources available for cancer-related research. It is imperative that researchers recognize the advantages and disadvantages of each data source to ensure their research questions are addressed appropriately., (© 2024 National Cancer Registrars Association.)

Rationale: Achieving the net benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS) depends on optimizing patient selection. Objective: To identify factors associated with clinician assessments that a patient was unlikely to benefit from LCS ("LCS-inappropriate") because of comorbidities or limited life expectancy. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients assessed for LCS at 30 Veterans Health Administration facilities from January 1, 2015 to February 1, 2021. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine factors associated with clinicians' designations of LCS inappropriateness (primary outcome), accounting for 3-year predicted probability (i.e., competing risk) of non-lung cancer death. Measurements and Main Results: Among 38,487 LCS-eligible patients, 1,671 (4.3%) were deemed LCS-inappropriate by clinicians, whereas 4,383 (11.4%) had an estimated 3-year competing risk of non-lung cancer death greater than 20%. Patients with higher competing risks of non-lung cancer death were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate (odds ratio [OR], 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.32-3.05). Older patients (ages 75-80; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.78) and those with interstitial lung disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.51-2.59) were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate than would be explained by competing risk of non-lung cancer death, whereas patients currently smoking (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73) were less likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate, suggesting that clinicians over- or underweighted these factors. The probability of being deemed LCS-inappropriate varied from 0.4% to 74%, depending on the clinician making the assessment (median OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.89-3.25). Conclusion: Concerningly, the likelihood that a patient is deemed LCS-inappropriate is more strongly associated with the clinician making the assessment than with patient characteristics. Patient selection may be optimized by providing decision support to help clinicians assess net LCS benefit.

Purpose: Describe primary care providers' (PCPs) barriers and facilitators to implementation of lung cancer screening programs in rural settings., Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with PCPs practicing in rural Oregon from November 2019 to September 2020. The interview questions and analytic framework were informed by the 2009 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We used inductive and deductive approaches for analysis., Results: We interviewed 15 key participants from 12 distinct health care systems. We identified several Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research factors affecting lung cancer screening implementation. 1) Most PCPs did not have workflows to assist in discussing screening and relied on their memory and knowledge of the patient's history to prompt discussions. PCPs supported screening and managed the patient throughout the process. 2) PCPs reported several patient-level barriers, including geographic access to lung cancer screening scans and out-of-pocket cost concerns. 3) PCPs reported that champions are necessary to create opportunities for local practices to adopt lung cancer screening programs., Conclusions: Rural-practicing PCPs were supportive of lung cancer screening, however workflow processes, time challenges, and patient-reported barriers remain impediments to improved screening in their clinics. We identified several areas for improvement in lung cancer screening implementation in rural primary care practices, ranging from designing clinic workflows and processes to designating clinic staff to support referral, screening, and follow-up care for patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: CGS serves in several administrative roles for lung cancer screening program in the Veterans Health Administration and does not receive financial compensation for that role. He has no professional affiliation with any study participant. He served on the American Lung Association panel to develop an online toolkit to support lung cancer screening efforts and received no financial compensation for that role. The author authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© Copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Anxiety and emotional distress have not been studied in large, diverse samples of patients with pulmonary nodules., Research Question: How common are anxiety and distress in patients with newly identified pulmonary nodules, and what factors are associated with these outcomes?, Study Design and Methods: This study surveyed participants in the Watch the Spot Trial, a large, pragmatic clinical trial of more vs less intensive strategies for radiographic surveillance of patients with small pulmonary nodules. The survey included validated instruments to measure patient-centered outcomes such as nodule-related emotional distress (Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and anxiety (Six-Item State Anxiety Inventory) 6 to 8 weeks following nodule identification. Mixed-effects models were used to compare outcomes between study arms following adjustment for potential confounders and clustering within enrollment site, while also examining a limited number of prespecified explanatory factors, including nodule size, mode of detection, type of ordering clinician, and lack of timely notification prior to contact by the study team., Results: The trial enrolled 34,699 patients; 2,049 individuals completed the baseline survey (5.9%). Respondents and nonrespondents had similar demographic and nodule characteristics, although more respondents were non-Hispanic and White. Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores indicated mild, moderate, or severe distress in 32.2%, 9.4%, and 7.2% of respondents, respectively, with no difference in scores between study arms. Following adjustment, greater emotional distress was associated with larger nodule size and lack of timely notification by a clinician; distress was also associated with younger age, female sex, ever smoking, Black race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Anxiety was associated with lack of timely notification, ever smoking, and female sex., Interpretation: Almost one-half of respondents experienced emotional distress 6 to 8 weeks following pulmonary nodule identification. Strategies are needed to mitigate the burden of distress, especially in younger, female, ever smoking, and minoritized patients, and those with larger nodules., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02623712; URL: www., Clinicaltrials: gov., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: C. G. S. is supported by resources from the VA Portland Health Care System; he is the Medical Director of the VA Portland Health Care System lung nodule surveillance system and does not receive additional remuneration for this role. He has a grant from the Oregon Health & Science UniversityKnight Cancer Institute to develop a nodule/lung cancer risk prediction model that includes working with a for-profit company, Optellum, Ltd. Neither he nor the Knight Cancer Institute receive remuneration for this collaboration. M. K. G. received research support through his institution from Medial EarlySign to develop machine learning models of lung cancer risk; royalties from UpToDate to coauthor topics on lung cancer diagnosis and staging; and nonemployee compensation from the American Thoracic Society to serve as Deputy Editor of the Annals of the American Thoracic Society, all outside of the completed work. None declared (B. C., L. Q., S. E. G., C. P. K., E. W., R. A. M., L. T. V., K. F., J. S., E. d. B., V. V. M., D. A. A., D. S. D., K. K., D. L. M., R. S. W., R. S-B.)., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hospice and palliative care (PC) are important components of lung cancer care and independently provide benefits to patients and their families. Objective: To better understand the relationship between hospice and PC and factors that influence this relationship. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (stage IIIB/IV) within the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) from 2007 to 2013 with follow-up through 2017 ( n  = 22,907). Mixed logistic regression models with a random effect for site, adjustment for patient variables, and propensity score weighting were used to examine whether the association between PC and hospice use varied by U.S. region and PC team characteristics. Results: Overall, 57% of patients with lung cancer received PC, 69% received hospice, and 16% received neither. Of those who received hospice, 60% were already enrolled in PC. Patients who received PC had higher odds of hospice enrollment than patients who did not receive PC (adjusted odds ratio = 3.25, 95% confidence interval: 2.43-4.36). There were regional differences among patients who received PC; the predicted probability of hospice enrollment was 85% and 73% in the Southeast and Northeast, respectively. PC team and facility characteristics influenced hospice use in addition to PC; teams with the shortest duration of existence, with formal team training, and at lower hospital complexity were more likely to use hospice (all p  < 0.05). Conclusions: Among patients with advanced lung cancer, PC was associated with hospice enrollment. However, this relationship varied by geographic region, and PC team and facility characteristics. Our findings suggest that regional PC resource availability may contribute to substitution effects between PC and hospice for end-of-life care.

Introduction: Lung cancer screening is widely underutilized. Organizational factors, such as readiness for change and belief in the value of change (change valence), may contribute to underutilization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between healthcare organizations' preparedness and lung cancer screening utilization., Methods: Investigators cross-sectionally surveyed clinicians, staff, and leaders at10 Veterans Affairs from November 2018 to February 2021 to assess organizational readiness to implement change. In 2022, investigators used simple and multivariable linear regression to evaluate the associations between facility-level organizational readiness to implement change and change valence with lung cancer screening utilization. Organizational readiness to implement change and change valence were calculated from individual surveys. The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible Veterans screened using low-dose computed tomography. Secondary analyses assessed scores by healthcare role., Results: The overall response rate was 27.4% (n=1,049), with 956 complete surveys analyzed: median age of 49 years, 70.3% female, 67.6% White, 34.6% clinicians, 61.1% staff, and 4.3% leaders. For each 1-point increase in median organizational readiness to implement change and change valence, there was an associated 8.4-percentage point (95% CI=0.2, 16.6) and a 6.3-percentage point increase in utilization (95% CI= -3.9, 16.5), respectively. Higher clinician and staff median scores were associated with increased utilization, whereas leader scores were associated with decreased utilization after adjusting for other roles., Conclusions: Healthcare organizations with higher readiness and change valence utilized more lung cancer screening. These results are hypothesis generating. Future interventions to increase organizations' preparedness, especially among clinicians and staff, may increase lung cancer screening utilization., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Lung cancer screening can save lives through the early detection of lung cancer, and professional societies recommend key lung cancer screening program components to ensure high-quality screening. Yet, little is known about the key components that comprise the various screening program models in routine clinical settings. The objective was to compare the utilization of these key components across centralized, hybrid, and decentralized lung cancer screening programs., Methods: The survey was designed to identify current structures and processes of lung cancer screening programs. It was administered electronically to Veterans Health Administration facilities nationally (N=122) between August and December 2021. Results were analyzed between March and August 2022 and stratified by self-identified lung cancer screening program type, and we tested the hypothesis that centralized screening programs would be more likely to have implemented practices that support lung cancer screening, followed by hybrid and decentralized programs, using the Cochran-Armitage trend test., Results: Overall, 69 (56.6%) facilities completed the survey, and respondents were lung cancer screening coordinators (39.1%), pulmonologists (33.3%), and oncologists (10.1%). Facilities most frequently self-identified as having a centralized (37.7%) program model, followed by identifying as having hybrid (30.4%) and decentralized (20.3%) programs. There was varying implementation of practices to support lung cancer screening, with hybrid and decentralized programs less likely to have lung cancer screening registries, lung cancer screening steering committees, or dedicated lung cancer screening coordinators., Conclusions: Although there is overlap between the components of various lung cancer screening program types, centralized programs more frequently implemented practices before the initial screening to support lung cancer screening. This work provides a path for future investigations to identify which lung cancer screening practices are effective to improve lung cancer screening outcomes, which could help inform implementation in settings with limited resources., (Copyright © 2023 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background: For patients with complex health and social needs, care coordination is crucial for improving their access to care, clinical outcomes, care experiences, and controlling their healthcare costs. However, evidence is inconsistent regarding the core elements of care coordination interventions, and lack of standardized processes for assessing patients' needs has made it challenging for providers to optimize care coordination based on patient needs and preferences. Further, ensuring providers have reliable and timely means of communicating about care plans, patients' full spectrum of needs, and transitions in care is important for overcoming potential care fragmentation. In the Veterans Health Administration (VA), several initiatives are underway to implement care coordination processes and services. In this paper, we describe our study underway in the VA aimed at building evidence for designing and implementing care coordination practices that enhance care integration and improve health and care outcomes for Veterans with complex care needs., Methods: In a prospective observational multiple methods study, for Aim 1 we will use existing data to identify Veterans with complex care needs who have and have not received care coordination services. We will examine the relationship between receipt of care coordination services and their health outcomes. In Aim 2, we will adapt the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Veteran Care questionnaire to survey a sample of Veterans about their experiences regarding coordination, integration, and the extent to which their care needs are being met. For Aim 3, we will interview providers and care teams about their perceptions of the innovation attributes of current care coordination needs assessment tools and processes, including their improvement over other approaches (relative advantage), fit with current practices (compatibility and innovation fit), complexity, and ability to visualize how the steps proceed to impact the right care at the right time (observability). The provider interviews will inform design and deployment of a widescale provider survey., Discussion: Taken together, our study will inform development of an enhanced care coordination intervention that seeks to improve care and outcomes for Veterans with complex care needs., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Hynes, Govier, Niederhausen, Tuepker, Laliberte, McCready, Hickok, Rowneki, Waller, Cordasco, Singer, McDonlad, Slatore, Thomas, Maciejewski, Battaglia and Perla.)

Background: Health care systems need to reach patients who are smokers and connect them to evidence-based resources that can help them quit. Telehealth, such as an interactive voice response (IVR) system, may be one solution, but there is no roadmap to develop or implement an IVR system within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)., Observations: We describe the development and implemention of IVR at the VA Portland Health Care System in Oregon to proactively reach veterans who use tobacco and connect them with cessation resources. We coordinated with local departments to verify the necessary processes and strategies that are important. We recommend several questions to ask the IVR vendor and be prepared to answer before contract finalization. The Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support (PETALS) initiative may be an excellent place to start for VA IVR-related questions and can be used for IVR initiation within the VA, but other vendors will be needed for nonresearch purposes. Finally, we describe the process timeline and steps to help potential users., Conclusions: IVR systems, once they are developed and implemented, can be efficient, low-cost, resource-nonintensive solutions that can effectively connect patients with needed health care services. Developing an IVR system within the VA was challenging for our research team. We experienced a large learning curve during implementation and hope that our experience and lessons will help VA personnel in the future., Competing Interests: Author disclosures Christopher Slatore, MD, is the medical director of the Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System lung nodule surveillance system and does not receive additional renumeration for this role. He has a grant from the Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute (KCI) to develop a nodule/lung cancer risk prediction model that includes working with a for-profit company, Optellum, Ltd. Neither he nor the KCI receive renumeration for this collaboration. The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest or outside sources of funding with regard to this article., (Copyright © 2023 Frontline Medical Communications Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Lauren Kearney, MD reports financial support was provided by Veterans Health Administration. Chief Consultant for the VA National Center for Lung Cancer Screening though does not receive extra/additional financial renumeration for this position - Christopher G Slatore MD, MS.

Background: We characterized prescription opioid medication use up to 2 years following the head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis and examined associations with moderate or high daily opioid prescription dose., Methods: Using administrative data from Veterans Health Administration, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 5522 Veterans treated for cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract between 2012 and 2019. Data included cancer diagnosis and treatments, pain severity, prescription opioid characteristics, demographics, and other clinical factors., Results: Two years post-HNC, 7.8% (n = 428) were receiving moderate or high-dose opioid therapy. Patients with at least moderate pain (18%, n = 996) had 2.48 times higher odds (95% CI = 1.94-3.09, p < 0.001) to be prescribed a moderate opioid dose or higher at 2 years post diagnosis., Conclusions: Survivors of HNC with at least moderate pain were at elevated risk of continued use of moderate and high dose opioids., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Introduction: Lung cancer screening (LCS) uptake is low. Assessing patients' cigarette pack-years and years since quitting is challenging given the lack of documentation in structured electronic health record data., Materials and Methods: We used a convenience sample of patients with a chest CT scan in the Veterans Health Administration. We abstracted data on cigarette use from electronic health record notes to determine LCS eligibility based on the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force age and cigarette use eligibility criteria. We used these data as the "ground truth" of LCS eligibility to compare them with structured data regarding tobacco use and a COPD diagnosis. We calculated sensitivity and specificity as well as fast-and-frugal decision trees., Results: For 50-80-year-old veterans identified as former or current tobacco users, we obtained 94% sensitivity and 47% specificity. For 50-80-year-old veterans identified as current tobacco users, we obtained 59% sensitivity and 79% specificity. Our fast-and-frugal decision tree that included a COPD diagnosis had a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 60%., Conclusion: These results can help health care systems make their LCS outreach efforts more efficient and give administrators and researchers a simple method to estimate their number of possibly eligible patients., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2023. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Aims: Clinical equipoise exists regarding early-stage lung cancer treatment among patients as trials comparing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgical resection are unavailable. Given the potential differences in treatment effectiveness and side-effects, we sought to determine the associations between treatment type, decision regret and depression., Materials and Methods: A multicentre, prospective study of patients with stage IA-IIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with planned treatment with SBRT or surgical resection was conducted. Decision regret and depression were measured using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) and Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) at 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment, respectively. Mixed linear regression modelling examined associations between treatment and decision regret adjusting for patient sociodemographics., Results: Among 211 study participants with early-stage lung cancer, 128 (61%) patients received SBRT and 83 (39%) received surgical resection. The mean age was 73 years (standard deviation = 8); 57% were female; 79% were White non-Hispanic. In the entire cohort at 3 months post-treatment, 72 (34%) and 57 (27%) patients had mild and severe decision regret, respectively. Among patients who received SBRT or surgery, 71% and 46% of patients experienced at least mild decision regret at 3 months, respectively. DRS scores increased at 6 months and decreased slightly at 12 months of follow-up in both groups. Higher DRS scores were associated with SBRT treatment (adjusted mean difference = 4.18, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 7.54) and depression (adjusted mean difference = 3.49, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 6.47). Neither patient satisfaction with their provider nor decision-making role concordance was associated with DRS scores., Conclusions: Most early-stage lung cancer patients experienced at least mild decision regret, which was associated with SBRT treatment and depression symptoms. Findings suggest patients with early-stage lung cancer may not be receiving optimal treatment decision-making support. Therefore, opportunities for improved patient-clinician communication probably exist., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background/objective: The VA MISSION Act aimed to increase Veterans' access to care by allowing eligible Veterans to use VA-paid care from non-VA providers ("VA-purchased care"). We interviewed Veterans who were eligible for both VA-delivered and VA-purchased care to examine factors they consider when making decisions about whether to use VA-delivered or VA-purchased care., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 28 Veterans across the USA who were eligible for VA-delivered and VA-purchased care, using deductive and inductive analysis to develop themes. Participants were recruited from a survey about healthcare access and decision-making. More than half of participants lived in rural areas, 21 were men, and 25 were > 50 years old., Key Results: Veteran participants identified (1) high-quality relationships with providers based on mutual trust, empathy, authenticity, and continuity of care, and (2) a positive environment or "eco-system of care" characterized by supportive interactions with staff and other Veterans, and exemplary customer service as integral to their decisions about where to receive care. These preferences influenced their engagement with VA and non-VA providers. We discovered corresponding findings related to Veterans' information needs. When making decisions around where to receive care, participants said they would like more information about VA and non-VA providers and services, and about coordination of care and referrals, including understanding processes and implications of utilizing VA-purchased care., Discussion/conclusion: Current VA-purchased care eligibility determinations focus on common access metrics (e.g., wait times, distance to care). Yet, Veterans discussed other important factors for navigating care decisions, including patient-provider relationship quality and the larger healthcare environment (e.g., interactions with staff and other Veterans). Our findings point to the need for health systems to collect and provide information on these aspects of care to ensure care decisions reflect what is important to Veterans when navigating where to receive care., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

To: 1) characterize how COVID-19-related policies influence patient-clinician communication and relationships in the ICU, with attention to race and ethnicity as factors and 2) identify interventions that may facilitate patient-clinician communication., Design: We conducted a qualitative study between September 2020 and February 2021 that explored facilitators and barriers to patient-clinician communication and the formation of therapeutic relationships. We used thematic analysis to develop findings describing patient-communication and therapeutic relationships within the ICU early in the COVID-19 pandemic., Setting: We purposively selected hospital dyads from regions in the United States that experienced early and/or large surges of patients hospitalized with COVID-19., Subjects: We recruited a national sample of ICU physicians from Veteran Affairs (VA) Health Care Systems and their associated academic affiliate hospitals., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Twenty-four intensivists from seven VA hospitals and six academic-affiliate hospitals participated. Intensivists noted the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on among people holding minoritized racial and ethnic identities, describing how language barriers and restrictive visitation policies exacerbated institutional mistrust and compromised physicians' ability to develop therapeutic relationships. We also identified several perceived influences on patient-clinician communication and the establishment of therapeutic relationships. Barriers included physicians' fear of becoming infected with COVID-19 and use of personal protective equipment, which created obstacles to effective physical and verbal interactions. Facilitators included the presence of on-site interpreters, use of web-based technology to interact with family members outside the ICU, and designation of a care team member or specialist service to provide routine updates to families., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has threatened patient-clinician communication and the development of therapeutic relationships in the ICU, particularly among people holding minoritized racial and ethnic identities and their families. We identified several facilitators to improve patient-clinician communication as perceived by intensivists that may help improve trust and foster therapeutic alliances., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Introduction: Veterans are at high risk for lung cancer and are an important group for lung cancer screening. Previous research suggests that lung cancer screening may not be reaching healthier and/or non-White individuals, who stand to benefit most from lung cancer screening. We sought to test whether lung cancer screening is associated with poor health and/or race and ethnicity among veterans., Methods: This cross-sectional, population-based study included veterans eligible for lung cancer screening (aged 55-79 years, ≥30 pack-year smoking history, current smokers or quit within 15 years, no previous lung cancer) in the 2017-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. Exposures were (1) poor health , defined as fair/poor health status and difficulty walking or climbing stairs, aligning with eligibility criteria for a pivotal lung cancer screening trial, and (2) race/ethnicity. The outcome was a receipt of lung cancer screening. All variables were self-reported., Results: Of 3,376 lung cancer screening-eligible veterans representing an underlying population of 866,000 individuals, 20.3% (95% CI=17.3, 23.6) had poor health, and 13.7% (95% CI=10.6, 17.5) identified as non-White. Poor health was strongly associated with lung cancer screening (adjusted RR=1.64, 95% CI=1.06, 2.27); one third of veterans screened for lung cancer would not qualify for a pivotal lung cancer screening trial in terms of health. Marked racial disparities were observed among veterans: after adjustment, non-White veterans were 67% less likely to report lung cancer screening than White veterans (adjusted RR=0.33, 95% CI=0.11, 0.66)., Conclusions: Lung cancer screening is correlated with poorer health and White race/ethnicity among veterans, which may undermine its population-level effectiveness. These results highlight the need to promote lung cancer screening, especially for healthier and/or non-White veterans, an important group of Americans for lung cancer screening.

Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected women more than men and may influence the publication of non-COVID-19 research. Objectives: To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with changes in manuscript acceptance rates among pulmonary/critical care journals and sex-based disparities in these rates. Methods: We analyzed first, senior, and corresponding author sex (female vs. male, identified by matching first names in a validated Genderize database) of manuscripts submitted to four pulmonary/critical care journals between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We constructed interrupted time series regression models to evaluate whether the proportion of female first and senior authors of non-COVID-19 original research manuscripts changed with the pandemic. Next, we performed multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the association of author sex with acceptance of original research manuscripts. Results: Among 8,332 original research submissions, women represented 39.9% and 28.3% of first and senior authors, respectively. We found no change in the proportion of female first or senior authors of non-COVID-19 or COVID-19 submitted research manuscripts during the COVID-19 era. Non-COVID-19 manuscripts submitted during the COVID-19 era had reduced odds of acceptance, regardless of author sex (first author adjusted OR [aOR], 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.36-0.59]; senior author aOR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.57]). Female senior authorship was associated with decreased acceptance of non-COVID-19 research manuscripts (crude rates, 14.4% [male] vs. 13.2% [female]; aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99]). Conclusions: Although female author submissions were not disproportionately influenced by COVID-19, we found evidence suggesting sex disparities in manuscript acceptance rates. Journals may need to consider strategies to reduce this disparity, and academic institutions may need to factor our findings, including lower acceptance rates for non-COVID-19 manuscripts, into promotion decisions.

Background: Since low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening was shown to be effective in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies for advanced lung cancer have become available. This study investigated the impact of these treatment advances on the expected benefits of LDCT screening., Methods: A microsimulation model of LDCT screening for high-risk individuals under standard systemic treatments (chemotherapy and radiation therapy) and novel treatments (immunotherapy and targeted therapy) was used. The model assumed a reduction in advanced-stage disease consistent with the NLST, and given the stage at diagnosis, it projected survival. The disease-specific relative mortality reduction (MR) due to LDCT screening was projected in the trial setting and in a population eligible for LDCT screening under the current US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations., Results: The availability of novel treatments reduced the MR in the LDCT arm of the NLST from 15% to 13.5% and the number of lung cancer deaths prevented from 310 to 224 per 100,000 persons screened. Over 10 years, population LDCT screening based on USPSTF recommendations prevented 374 lung cancer deaths per 100,000 under standard treatments (13.3% MR) and 236 per 100,000 under fully adopted novel treatments (10.6% MR). The number needed to screen to avert one death over 10 years was 270 under standard treatments and 440 under novel treatments., Conclusions: The transition from standard systemic treatments to novel treatments is expected to reduce the relative and absolute mortality benefits of LDCT screening. Benefit-harm tradeoffs of LDCT screening are likely to change as novel treatments become widespread., (© 2022 American Cancer Society.)

Context: Palliative care (PC) is associated with improved quality of life, survival, and decreased healthcare use at the end of life among lung cancer patients. However, the specific elements of palliative care that may contribute to these benefits are unclear., Objectives: To evaluate the associations of PC and its setting of delivery with prescriptions of symptom management medications, advance care planning (ACP), hospice enrollment, and home health care (HHC) receipt., Methods: Retrospective, cohort study of patients with advanced stage (IIIB/IV) lung cancer in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) diagnosed from 2007-2013; with follow-up through 2017. Propensity score methods were used with inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression modeling, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics., Results: Among 23 142 patients, 57% received PC. Compared to non-receipt of PC, PC in any setting (inpatient or outpatient) was associated with increased prescriptions of pain medications (Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.45-1.83), constipation regimen with pain medications (aOR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.63-2.54), and antidepressants (aOR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.52-2.09). PC was also associated with increased ACP (aOR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.37-1.67) and hospice enrollment (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI:1.31-1.47), and decreased HHC (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-.90) compared to non-receipt of PC. Receipt of PC in outpatient settings was associated with increased prescriptions of pain medications (aOR = 2.54, 95% CI: 2.13-3.04) and antidepressants (aOR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.46-2.12), and hospice enrollment (aOR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.90-2.31) compared to receipt of PC in inpatient settings., Conclusions: PC is associated with increased use of symptom management medications, ACP, and hospice enrollment, especially when delivered in outpatient settings. These elements of care elucidate potential mechanisms for improved outcomes associated with PC and provide a framework for a primary palliative care approach among non-palliative care clinicians.

Aims: Palliative care integration improves quality of life among patients with lung cancer and their families. Despite these benefits, significant barriers persist and patients do not receive timely integration. This study sought to identify facilitators of and barriers to integration in lung cancer care. Materials & methods: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with palliative care and lung cancer clinicians and analyzed using traditional content analysis. 23 clinicians were interviewed from geographically dispersed hospitals within a national healthcare system. Results: Palliative care integration improved over time, enhanced by several facilitators stratified at four levels (patient/clinician/hospital/organization). Most important among these was multidisciplinary care delivered in outpatient settings, fostering trust and relationships among clinicians which were pivotal to successful integration. Workforce shortages and limited use of primary palliative care among lung cancer clinicians need to be addressed for continued growth in the field. Conclusion: Relationships among clinicians are crucial to successful palliative care integration in lung cancer care.

Rationale: Approximately a quarter of patients with early stage lung cancer are not medically fit for lobectomy. Limited resection and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) have emerged as alternatives for these patients. Given the equipoise on the effectiveness of the two treatments, treatment-related adverse events (AEs) could have a significant impact on patients' decision-making and treatment outcomes. Objectives: To compare the AE profile between SBRT versus limited resection. Methods: Data were derived from a prospective cohort of patients with stage I-IIA non-small cell lung cancer who were deemed as high-risk for lobectomy recruited from five centers across the United States. Propensity scores and inverse probability weighting were used to compare the rates of 30- and 90-day AEs among patients treated with limited resection versus SBRT. Results: Overall, 65% of 252 patients underwent SBRT. After adjusting for propensity scores, there was no significant difference in developing at least one AE comparing SBRT to limited resection (odds ratio [OR]: 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-1.55 and OR: 1.27; 95% CI: 0.84-1.91 at 30 and 90 days, respectively). SBRT was associated with lower risk of infectious AEs than limited resection at 30 days (OR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.39) and 90 days posttreatment (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.98). Additionally, SBRT was associated with persistently elevated risk of fatigue (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.34-4.54 at 30 days and OR: 2.69; 95% CI: 1.52-4.77 at 90 days, respectively), but significantly lower risks of respiratory AEs (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.20-0.65 and OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.86 at 30 and 90 days, respectively). Conclusions: Though equivalent in developing at least one AE, we found that SBRT is associated with less toxicity than limited resection in terms of infectious and respiratory AEs but higher rates of fatigue that persisted up to 3 months posttreatment. This information, combined with data about oncologic effectiveness, can help patients' decision-making regarding these alternative therapies.

Objective: Evidence-based decision support resources do not exist for persons with lung cancer. We sought to develop and refine a treatment decision support, or conversation tool, to improve shared decision-making (SDM)., Methods: We conducted a multi-site study among patients with stage I-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who completed or had ongoing lung cancer treatment using semi-structured, cognitive qualitative interviews to assess participant understanding of content. We used an integrated approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis., Results: Twenty-seven patients with NSCLC participated. Participants with prior cancer experiences or those with family members with prior cancer experiences reported better preparedness for cancer treatment decision-making. All participants agreed the conversation tool would be helpful to clarify their thinking about values, comparisons, and goals of treatment, and to help patients communicate more effectively with their clinicians., Conclusion: Participants reported that the tool may empower them with confidence and agency to actively participate in cancer treatment SDM. The conversation tool was acceptable, comprehensible, and usable. Next steps will test effectiveness on patient-centered and decisional outcomes., Innovation: A personalized conversation tool using consequence tables and core SDM components is novel in that it can encourage a tailored, conversational dynamic and includes patient-centered values along with traditional decisional outcomes.

Few studies exist showing that involvement in lung cancer screening (LCS) leads to a change in rates of cigarette smoking. We investigated LCS longitudinally to determine whether teachable moments for smoking cessation occur downstream from the initial provider-patient LCS shared decision-making discussion and self-reported effects on smoking behaviors. We performed up to two successive semi-structured interviews to assess the experiences of 39 individuals who formerly or currently smoked cigarettes who underwent LCS decision-making discussions performed during routine care from three established US medical center LCS programs. The majority of those who remembered hearing about the importance of smoking cessation after LCS-related encounters did not report communication about smoking influencing their motivation to quit or abstain from smoking, including patients who were found to have pulmonary nodules. Patients experienced little distress related to LCS discussions. Patients reported that there were other, more significant, reasons for quitting or abstinence. They recommended clinicians continue to ask about smoking at every clinical encounter, provide information comparing the benefits of LCS with those of quitting smoking, and have clinicians help them identify triggers or other motivators for improving smoking behaviors. Our findings suggest that there may be other teachable moment opportunities outside of LCS processes that could be utilized to motivate smoking reduction or cessation, or LCS processes could be improved to integrate cessation resources., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: While passive enrollment or "opt-out" recruitment methods facilitate pragmatic clinical trials, they pose unique challenges, and it is unclear how participants feel about them. Here, we describe patient responses to passive enrollment into the Watch the Spot Trial, a pragmatic trial comparing two sets of guidelines for small lung nodule follow-up., Methods: For this nested qualitative study, we analyzed participant-initiated calls and emails. We performed a qualitative content analysis, using a team-coding approach to identify reasons that eligible participants contacted the study team. We calculated the proportion of contacts containing each code, and how often each code coincided with study opt-outs and other codes., Results: Of 23,412 eligible participants across seven sites, 1494 (6.4%) contacted the study team, with 1560 total contacts. Among the total contacts, the most common codes (i.e., reasons for contacting the team) were study opt-outs (n = 614, 39.0%), clarification of study procedures (n = 328, 21.0%), and unawareness of the nodule prior to research notification (n = 244, 15.6%). The least common codes were concerns about sharing of protected health information with the study team (n = 22, 1.4%) or outside of the healthcare system (n = 26, 1.7%), and disapproval of the opt-out approach (n = 10, 0.6%); most patients with these concerns opted-out. Nodule unawareness sometimes coincided with anger (n = 24) or distress (n = 15), and questions about nodule care sometimes coincided with distress (n = 20) and questions about follow-up surveys (n = 26)., Conclusion: Most participants did not report concerns about passive enrollment. Patient perspectives are an invaluable resource for minimizing risks and inconveniences of future pragmatic trials using this recruitment method., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We developed Teachable Moment to Opt-Out of Tobacco (TeaM OUT) as a tobacco treatment intervention based on a foundation of a theoretical model of teachable moments, "naturally occurring life transitions or health events thought to motivate individuals to spontaneously adopt risk-reducing health behaviors". The TeaM OUT intervention combines a teachable moment for patients with newly detected incidental pulmonary nodules with a proactive interactive voice response (IVR) system to increase connections to evidence-based tobacco treatment interventions., Methods: We will perform a convergent, nested observational mixed-methods study utilizing both randomized trial and observational methods to test the effectiveness and generalizability of the TeaM OUT intervention through three aims. AIM 1: Among patients recently diagnosed with a pulmonary nodule, we will utilize a pragmatic, stepped wedge randomized controlled design to evaluate the effectiveness of a proactive, teachable moment-based, tobacco treatment outreach intervention (TeaM OUT) on increasing engagement with tobacco treatment resources compared to Enhanced Usual Care. AIM 2: Using a longitudinal observational design, we will evaluate the association of receipt of the TeaM OUT intervention with seven-day point abstinence prevalence and quit motivation compared to Enhanced Usual Care. AIM 3: Qualitatively elicit perspectives from key stakeholders to inform acceptability and utility, implementation barriers and facilitators, and scalability of the TeaM OUT intervention., Discussion: We are hopeful that implementation of TeaM OUT will increase the number of patients who quit using cigarettes with subsequent improvements in their health., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare no conflicts of interest with the work presented in this manuscript., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Among patients with suspected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we sought to evaluate the association of patient-clinician communication (PCC) with patient-centered outcomes (PCOs). We conducted a multicenter, prospective cohort study examining PCOs at five time points, up to 12-months post-treatment. We used generalized estimating equation (GEE) models adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables to examine the relationship between PCC (dichotomized as high- or low-quality) and decisional conflict, treatment self-efficacy, and anxiety. The cohort included 165 patients who were 62% male with a mean age of 70.7 ± SD 8.1 years. Adjusted GEE analysis including 810 observations revealed high-quality PCC was associated with no decisional conflict (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.27) and higher self-efficacy (β = -0.26, 95% CI = -0.37 to -0.14). High-quality PCC was not associated with moderately severe anxiety (aOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.41 to 1.09), though was associated with decreased anxiety scores (β = -3.91, 95% CI = -6.48 to -1.35). Among individuals with suspected early-stage NSCLC, high-quality PCC is associated with less decisional conflict and higher self-efficacy; the relationship with anxiety is unclear. Clinicians should prioritize enhanced treatment-related communication at critical and vulnerable periods in the cancer care trajectory to improve PCOs., (© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: The Veterans Health Administration issued policy for lung cancer screening resources at eight Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) in a demonstration project (DP) from 2013 through 2015., Research Question: Do policies that provide resources increase lung cancer screening rates?, Study Design and Methods: Data from eight DP VAMCs (DP group) and 20 comparable VAMCs (comparison group) were divided into before DP (January 2011-June 2013), DP (July 2013-June 2015), and after DP (July 2015-December 2018) periods. Coprimary outcomes were unique veterans screened per 1,000 eligible per month and those with 1-year (9-15 months) follow-up screening. Eligible veterans were estimated using yearly counts and the percentage of those with eligible smoking histories. Controlled interrupted time series and difference-in-differences analyses were performed., Results: Of 27,746 veterans screened, the median age was 66.5 years and most were White (77.7%), male (95.6%), and urban dwelling (67.3%). During the DP, the average rate of unique veterans screened at DP VAMCs was 17.7 per 1,000 eligible per month, compared with 0.3 at comparison VAMCs. Adjusted analyses found a higher rate increase at DP VAMCs by 0.93 screening per 1,000 eligible per month (95% CI, 0.25-1.61) during this time, with an average facility-level difference of 17.4 screenings per 1,000 eligible per month (95% CI, 12.6-22.3). Veterans with 1-year follow-up screening also increased more rapidly at DP VAMCs during the DP, by 0.39 screening per 1,000 eligible per month (95% CI, 0.18-0.60), for an average facility-level difference of 7.2 more screenings per 1,000 eligible per month (95% CI, 5.2-9.2). Gains were not maintained after the DP., Interpretation: In this cohort, provision of resources for lung cancer screening implementation was associated with an increase in veterans screened and those with 1-year follow-up screening. Screening gains associated with the DP were not maintained., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: Lung cancer screening (LCS) is underused in the US, particularly in underserved populations, and little is known about factors associated with declining LCS. Guidelines call for shared decision-making when LCS is offered to ensure informed, patient-centered decisions., Objective: To assess how frequently veterans decline LCS and examine factors associated with declining LCS., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included LCS-eligible US veterans who were offered LCS between January 1, 2013, and February 1, 2021, by a physician at 1 of 30 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities that routinely used electronic health record clinical reminders documenting LCS eligibility and veterans' decisions to accept or decline LCS. Data were obtained from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse or Medicare claims files from the VA Information Resource Center., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was documentation, in clinical reminders, that veterans declined LCS after a discussion with a physician. Logistic regression analyses with physicians and facilities as random effects were used to assess factors associated with declining LCS compared with agreeing to LCS., Results: Of 43 257 LCS-eligible veterans who were offered LCS (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [5.8] years), 95.9% were male, 84.2% were White, and 37.1% lived in a rural zip code; 32.0% declined screening. Veterans were less likely to decline LCS if they were younger (age 55-59 years: odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74; age 60-64 years: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85), were Black (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87), were Hispanic (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), did not have to make co-payments (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99), or had more frequent VHA health care utilization (outpatient: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.72; emergency department: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92). Veterans were more likely to decline LCS if they were older (age 70-74 years: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.37; age 75-80 years: OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.73-2.17), lived farther from a VHA screening facility (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08), had spent more days in long-term care (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19), had a higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), or had specific cardiovascular or mental health conditions (congestive heart failure: OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.39; stroke: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28; schizophrenia: OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.60-2.19). The physician and facility offering LCS accounted for 19% and 36% of the variation in declining LCS, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, older veterans with serious comorbidities were more likely to decline LCS and Black and Hispanic veterans were more likely to accept it. Variation in LCS decisions was accounted for more by the facility and physician offering LCS than by patient factors. These findings suggest that shared decision-making conversations in which patients play a central role in guiding care may enhance patient-centered care and address disparities in LCS.

Rationale: Millions of people are diagnosed with incidental pulmonary nodules every year. Although most nodules are benign, it is universally recommended that all patients be assessed to determine appropriate follow-up and ensure that it is obtained. Objectives: To determine the degree of concordance and adherence to 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines among radiologists, clinicians, and patients at two Veterans Affairs healthcare systems with incidental nodule tracking systems. Methods: Trained researchers abstracted data from the electronic health records of patients with incidental pulmonary nodules as identified by interpreting radiologists from 2008 to 2016. We classified radiology reports and patient follow-up into three categories. Radiologist-Fleischner adherence was the agreement between the radiologist's recommendation in the computed tomography (CT) report and the 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines. Clinician/patient-Fleischner concordance was agreement between patient follow-up and the guidelines. Clinician/patient-radiologist adherence was agreement between the radiologist's recommendation and patient follow-up. We evaluated whether the recommendation or follow-up was more (e.g., sooner) or less (e.g., later) aggressive than recommended. Results: After exclusions, 4,586 patients with 7,408 imaging tests ( n  = 4,586 initial chest CT scans; n  = 2,717 follow-up chest CT scans; n  = 105 follow-up low-dose CT scans) were included. Among radiology reports that could be classified in terms of Fleischner Society guidelines ( n  = 3,150), 80% had nonmissing radiologist recommendations. Among those reports, radiologist-Fleischner adherence was 86.6%, with 4.8% more aggressive and 8.6% less aggressive. Among patients whose initial scans could be classified, clinician/patient-Fleischner concordance was 46.0%, 14.5% were more aggressive, and 39.5% were less aggressive. Clinician/patient-radiologist adherence was 54.3%. Veterans whose radiology reports were adherent to Fleischner Society guidelines had a substantially higher proportion of clinician/patient-Fleischner concordance: 52.0% concordance among radiologist-Fleischner adherent versus 11.6% concordance among radiologist-Fleischner nonadherent. Conclusions: In this multi-health system observational study of incidental pulmonary nodule follow-up, we found that radiologist adherence to 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines may be necessary but not sufficient. Our results highlight the many facets of care processes that must occur to achieve guideline-concordant care.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health care systems and has resulted in widespread critical care staffing shortages, negatively impacting the quality of care delivered., Research Question: How have hospitals' emergency responses to the pandemic influenced the well-being of frontline intensivists, and do any potential strategies exist to improve their well-being and to help preserve the critical care workforce?, Study Design and Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews of intensivists at clusters of tertiary and community hospitals located in six regions across the United States between August and November 2020 using the "four S" framework of acute surge planning (ie, space, staff, stuff, and system) to organize the interview guide. We then used inductive thematic analysis to identify themes describing the influence of hospitals' emergency responses on intensivists' well-being., Results: Thirty-three intensivists from seven tertiary and six community hospitals participated. Intensivists reported experiencing substantial moral distress, particularly because of restricted visitor policies and their perceived negative impacts on patients, families, and staff. Intensivists also frequently reported burnout symptoms as a result of their experiences with patient death, exhaustion over the pandemic's duration, and perceived lack of support from colleagues and hospitals. We identified several potentially modifiable factors perceived to improve morale, including the proactive provision of mental health resources, establishment of formal backup schedules for physicians, and clear actions demonstrating that clinicians are valued by their institutions., Interpretation: Restrictive visitation policies contributed to moral distress as reported by intensivists, highlighting the need to reconsider the risks and benefits of these policies. We also identified several interventions as perceived by intensivists that may help to mitigate moral distress and to improve burnout as part of efforts to preserve the critical care workforce., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the USA and worldwide, and lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT (LDCT) has the potential to improve lung cancer outcomes. A critical question is whether the ratio of potential benefits to harms found in prior LCS trials applies to an older and potentially sicker population. The Personalised Lung Cancer Screening (PLuS) study will help close this knowledge gap by leveraging real-world data to fully characterise LCS recipients. The principal goal of the PLuS study is to characterise the comorbidity burden of individuals undergoing LCS and quantify the benefits and harms of LCS to enable informed decision-making., Methods and Analysis: PLuS is a multicentre observational study designed to assemble an LCS cohort from the electronic health records of ~40 000 individuals undergoing annual LCS with LDCT from 2016 to 2022. Data will be integrated into a unified repository to (1) examine the burden of multimorbidity by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and age; (2) quantify potential benefits and harms; and (3) use the observational data with validated simulation models in the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) to provide LCS outcomes in the real-world US population. We will fit a multivariable logistic regression model to estimate the adjusted ORs of comorbidity, functional limitations and impaired pulmonary function adjusted for relevant covariates. We will also estimate the cumulative risk of LCS outcomes using discrete-time survival models. To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine observational data and simulation models to estimate the long-term impact of LCS with LDCT., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Institutional Review Board and VA Portland Health Care System. The results will be disseminated through publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Safety considerations include protection of patient confidentiality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The goal of our study was to evaluate the development of new mental health diagnoses up to 6-months following COVID-19 hospitalization for in a large, national sample., Method: Data were extracted for all Veterans hospitalized at Veterans Health Administration hospitals for COVID-19 from March through August of 2020 utilizing national administrative data. After identifying the cohort, follow-up data were linked through six months post-hospitalization. Data were analyzed using logistic regression., Results: Eight percent of patients developed a new mental health diagnosis following hospitalization. The most common new mental health diagnoses involved depressive, anxiety, and adjustment disorders. Younger and rural patients were more likely to develop new mental health diagnoses. Women and those with more comorbidities were less likely to develop new diagnoses., Conclusion: A subpopulation of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 developed new mental health diagnoses. Unique demographics predictors indicate the potential need for additional outreach and screening to groups at elevated risk of post-hospitalization, mental health sequelae., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee ( n  = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1 ) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2 ) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3 ) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Many patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) do not receive guideline-directed care. While distance to an ACHD center has been identified as a potential barrier to care, the impact of distance on care location is not well understood. The Oregon All Payer All Claims database was queried to identify subjects 18-65 years who had a health encounter from 2010 to 2015 with an International Classification of Diseases-9 code consistent with ACHD. Residence area was classified using metropolitan statistical areas and driving distance was queried from Google Maps. Utilization rates and percentages were calculated and odds ratios were estimated using negative binomial and logistic regression. Of 10,199 identified individuals, 52.4% lived < 1 h from the ACHD center, 37.5% 1-4 h, and 10.1% > 4 h. Increased distance from the ACHD center was associated with a lower rate of ACHD-specific follow-up [< 1 h: 13.0% vs. > 4 h: 5.0%, adjusted OR 0.32 (0.22, 0.48)], but with more inpatient, emergency room, and outpatient visits overall. Those who more lived more than 4 h from the ACHD center had less inpatient visits at urban hospitals (55.5% vs. 93.9% in those < 1 h) and the ACHD center (6.2% vs. 18.2%) and more inpatient admissions at rural or critical access hospitals (25.5% vs. 1.9%). Distance from the ACHD center was associated with a decreased probability of ACHD follow-up but higher health service use overall. Further work is needed to identify strategies to improve access to specialized ACHD care for all individuals with ACHD., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)