Search

The present study sought to understand the antecedents to COVID-19 vaccination among those reporting a change in vaccine intention in order to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the United States. We employed semi-structured interviews and one focus group discussion with vaccinated and unvaccinated Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employees and Veterans at three Veterans' Affairs medical centers between January and June 2021. A subset of these participants (n=21) self-reported a change in COVID-19 vaccine intention and were selected for additional analysis. We combined thematic analysis using the 5C scale (confidence, collective responsibility, complacency, calculation, constraints) as our theoretical framework with a constant comparative method from codes based on the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. We generated 13 themes distributed across the 5C constructs that appeared to be associated with a change in COVID-19 vaccine intention. Themes included a trusted family member, friend or colleague in a healthcare field, a trusted healthcare professional, distrust of government or politics (confidence); duty to family and protection of others (collective responsibility); perceived health status and normative beliefs (complacency); perceived vaccine safety, perceived risk-benefit, and orientation towards deliberation (calculation); and ease of process (constraints). Key factors in promoting vaccine uptake included a desire to protect family; and conversations with as key factors in promoting vaccine uptake. Constructs from the 5C scale are useful in understanding intrapersonal changes in vaccine intentions over time, which may help public health practitioners improve future vaccine uptake.In this study of the Veteran and VA employee population, we aimed to understand what factors led to a decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. As part of a quality improvement project, we interviewed individuals at three Veterans’ Affairs sites in the first six months of 2021. We then used a smaller sample of 21 participants who reported a change in their intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to analyze for this study. This analysis utilizes constructs from the 5C scale, which was developed to understand the conditions required for an individual to decide to receive a vaccine (confidence, collective responsibility, complacency, calculation, constraints). The coding process revealed a number of recurring themes across the interviews falling under each of the five constructs, but concepts relating to vaccine confidence (i.e., level of trust in those developing and disseminating the vaccine) were most common, and constraints (i.e., psychological and structural barriers that stand in the way of vaccination) appeared least frequently in our interviews. We found that significant motivators to receive the vaccine included a desire to protect family and conversations with trusted clinicians, particularly mental healthcare providers. Our study was unique in using the 5Cs to understand changes in vaccine changes over time. Findings show that change in vaccine attitudes is possible even in the presence of concerns and shed light on approaches that public health providers could use to improve vaccine and booster rates.

To identify which Veteran populations are routinely accessing video-based care.National, secondary administrative data from electronic health records at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), 2019-2021.This retrospective cohort analysis identified patient characteristics associated with the odds of using any video care; and then, among those with a previous video visit, the annual rate of video care utilization. Video care use was reported overall and stratified into care type (e.g., primary, mental health, and specialty video care) between March 10, 2020 and February 28, 2021.Veterans active in VA health care (1 outpatient visit between March 11, 2019 and March 10, 2020) were included in this study.Among 5,389,129 Veterans in this evaluation, approximately 27.4% of Veterans had at least one video visit. We found differences in video care utilization by type of video care: 14.7% of Veterans had at least one primary care video visit, 10.6% a mental health video visit, and 5.9% a specialty care video visit. Veterans with a history of housing instability had a higher overall rate of video care driven by their higher usage of video for mental health care compared with Veterans in stable housing. American Indian/Alaska Native Veterans had reduced odds of video visits, yet similar rates of video care when compared to White Veterans. Low-income Veterans had lower odds of using primary video care yet slightly elevated rates of primary video care among those with at least one video visit when compared to Veterans enrolled at VA without special considerations.Variation in video care utilization patterns by type of care identified Veteran populations that might require greater resources and support to initiate and sustain video care use. Our data support service specific outreach to homeless and American Indian/Alaska Native Veterans.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: In prior work, higher quality care for work-associated carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) was associated with improved symptoms, functional status, and overall health. We sought to examine whether quality of care is associated with healthcare expenditures or disability. METHODS: Among 343 adults with workers’ compensation claims for CTS, we created patient-level aggregate quality scores for underuse (not receiving highly beneficial care) and overuse (receiving care for which risks exceed benefits). We assessed whether each aggregate quality score (0-100%, 100% = better care) was associated with healthcare expenditures (18-month expenditures, any anticipated need for future expenditures) or disability (days on temporary disability, permanent impairment rating at 18 months). RESULTS: Mean aggregate quality scores were 77.8% (standard deviation [S.D.] 16.5%) for underuse and 89.2% (S.D. 11.0%) for overuse. An underuse score of 100% was associated with higher risk-adjusted 18-month expenditures ($3,672; 95% CI $324 to $7,021) but not with future expenditures (−0.07 percentage points; 95% CI −0.48 to 0.34), relative to a score of 0%. An overuse score of 100% was associated with lower 18-month expenditures (−$4,549, 95% CI −$8,792 to −$306) and a modestly lower likelihood of future expenditures (−0.62 percentage points, 95% CI −1.23 to −0.02). Quality of care was not associated with disability. DISCUSSION: Improving quality of care could increase or lower short-term healthcare expenditures, depending on how often care is currently underused or overused. Future research is needed on quality of care in varied workers’ compensation contexts, as well as effective and economical strategies for improving quality.

Limited implementation of palliative care practices in hemodialysis may contribute to end-of-life care that is intensive and not patient centered. We determined whether a learning collaborative for hemodialysis center providers improved delivery of palliative care best practices.Ten US hemodialysis centers participated in a pre-post study targeting seriously ill patients between April 2019 and September 2020. Three practices were prioritized: screening for serious illness, goals of care discussions, and use of a palliative dialysis care pathway. The collaborative educational bundle consisted of learning sessions, communication skills training, and implementation support. The primary outcome was change in the probability of complete advance care planning documentation among seriously ill patients. Health care utilization was a secondary outcome, and implementation outcomes of acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and penetration were assessed using mixed methods.One center dropped out due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Among the remaining nine centers, 20% (273 of 1395) of patients were identified as seriously ill preimplementation, and 16% (203 of 1254) were identified as seriously ill postimplementation. From the preimplementation to postimplementation period, the adjusted probability of complete advance care planning documentation among seriously ill patients increased by 34.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 4.4 to 68.5). There was no difference in mortality or in utilization of palliative hemodialysis, hospice referral, or hemodialysis discontinuation. Screening for serious illness was widely adopted, and goals of care discussions were adopted with incomplete integration. There was limited adoption of a palliative dialysis care pathway.A learning collaborative for hemodialysis centers spanning the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was associated with adoption of serious illness screening and goals of care discussions as well as improved documentation of advance care planning for seriously ill patients.Pathways Project: Kidney Supportive Care, NCT04125537.

Occurrences of physician burnout have reached epidemic numbers, and the electronic health record (EHR) is a commonly cited cause of the distress. To enhance current understanding of the relationship between burnout and the EHR, we explored the connections between physicians' distress and the EHR.In this qualitative study, physicians and graduate medical trainees from two healthcare organizations in California were interviewed about EHR-related distressing events and the impact on their emotions and actions. We analyzed physician responses to identify themes regarding the negative impact of the EHR on physician experience and actions. EHR "distressing events" were categorized using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Physician Professional Competencies.Every participating physician reported EHR-related distress affecting professional activities. Five main themes emerged from our analysis: system blocks to patient care; poor implementation, design, and functionality of the EHR; billing priorities conflicting with ideal workflow and best-practice care; lack of efficiency; and poor teamwork function. When mapped to the ACGME competencies, physician distress frequently stemmed from situations where physicians prioritized systems-based practice above other desired professional actions and behaviors. Physicians also reported a climate of silence in which physicians would not share problems due to fear of retribution or lack of confidence that the problems would be addressed.Physicians and administrators need to address the hierarchy of values that prioritizes system requirements such as those required by the EHR above physicians' other desired professional actions and behaviors. Balancing the importance of competing competencies may help to address rising burnout. We also recommend that administrators consider qualitative anonymous interviews as an effective method to uncover and understand physician distress in light of physicians' reported climate of silence.

To identify trends in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use and outcomes by race (non-Hispanic White, Black), ethnicity (Hispanic), and sex over time.Despite rapid growth in TAVR use over time, our understanding of its use and outcomes among males and females of underrepresented racial/ethnic groups remains limited.A retrospective analysis of hospitalizations from 2013 to 2017 from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database was performed.White patients comprised 65% (n = 2.16 × 10Differences in TAVR growth and outcomes by race, ethnicity, and sex over time highlight areas for focused efforts to close gaps in minimally invasive structural heart disease care.

Background The goal of this study was an assessment of availability postoperative pain management quality measures and National Quality Forum–endorsed measures. Postoperative pain is an important clinical timepoint because poor pain control can lead to patient suffering, chronic opiate use, and/or chronic pain. Quality measures can guide best practices, but it is unclear whether there are measures for managing pain after surgery. Methods The National Quality Forum Quality Positioning System, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Indicators, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Measures Inventory Tool databases were searched in November 2019. We conducted a systematic literature review to further identify quality measures in research publications, clinical practice guidelines, and gray literature for the period between March 11, 2015 and March 11, 2020. Results Our systematic review yielded 1,328 publications, of which 206 were pertinent. Nineteen pain management quality measures were identified from the quality measure databases, and 5 were endorsed by National Quality Forum. The National Quality Forum measures were not specific to postoperative pain management. Three of the non-endorsed measures were specific to postoperative pain. Conclusion The dearth of published postoperative pain management quality measures, especially National Quality Forum–endorsed measures, highlights the need for more rigorous evidence and widely endorsed postoperative pain quality measures to guide best practices.

BackgroundCardiovascular procedural treatments were deferred at scale during the COVID-19 pandemic, with unclear impact on patients presenting with Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI).MethodsIn a retrospective cohort study of all patients diagnosed with NSTEMI in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Healthcare System from 1/1/19 to 10/30/22 (n=67,125), procedural treatments and outcomes were compared between the pre-pandemic period and six unique pandemic phases (1: Acute phase, 2: Community spread, 3: First Peak, 4: Post-Vaccine, 5. Second Peak, 6. Recovery). Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess association between pandemic phases and 30-day mortality.ResultsNSTEMI volumes dropped significantly with the pandemic onset (62.7% of pre-pandemic peak) and did not revert to pre-pandemic levels in subsequent phases, even after vaccine availability. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) volumes declined proportionally. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, NSTEMI patients experienced higher 30-day mortality during Phase 2 and 3, even after adjustment for COVID-19 positive status, demographics, baseline comorbidities, and receipt of procedural treatment (adjusted OR for Phase 2-3 combined: 1.26 [95% CI 1.13-1.43], pConclusionsHigher mortality after NSTEMI occurred during the initial spread and first peak of the pandemic, but resolved before the second, higher peak – suggesting effective adaptation of care delivery but a costly delay to implementation. Investigation into the vulnerabilities of the early pandemic spread are vital to informing future resource-constrained practices.Clinical PerspectiveWhat is New?After the initial significant decline in NSTEMI presentations during the acute phase of the pandemic, volumes of NSTEMI presentations and procedural treatment have not reverted to pre-pandemic levels despite widespread availability of vaccines in the Veterans Health Administration.Compared to the pre-pandemic period, 30-day mortality after NSTEMI increased during the initial spread and first pandemic peak (Phases 2 and 3) -- but resolved before the subsequent highest pandemic peak of Phase 5 -- suggesting a delay to implementation of adapted systems of cardiovascular care.The increased mortality was not significantly mediated by the decline in procedural volumes, suggesting appropriate triage of procedural care during the pandemic.What are the Clinical Implications?The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have had a lasting impact on health-seeking behaviors among NSTEMI patients, with unclear long-term effects of this increased threshold to obtain cardiovascular care.Investigation into the vulnerabilities that occurred during initial phases of the pandemic are urgently needed to inform ongoing and future resource-constrained practices.

Guidelines widely recommend avoiding antibiotics for many acute upper respiratory infections (aURIs) to avert adverse events in the absence of likely benefit. However, the extent of harm from these antibiotics remains a subject of debate and could inform patient-centered decision-making. Prior estimates finding a number needed to harm (NNH) between 8 and 10 rely on patient-reported adverse events of any severity. In this analysis, we sought to estimate adverse events by only measuring comparatively severe events that require subsequent clinical evaluation.We constructed a retrospective cohort, including 51 million patient encounters. Using logistic regression models, we determined the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of clinically detectable adverse events following antibiotic use compared with events among unexposed individuals with aURIs. Our outcomes included candidiasis, diarrhea, Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), and a composite outcome.From our analysis, 62.4% of the population received antibiotics in an aURI encounter. Observed adverse events in the antibiotic-exposed group were 54,279 and 46,936 for diarrhea and candidiasis, respectively, yielding an aOR of 1.24 and 1.61, and an NNH of 3,126 and 1,975. Observed events of CDI in the exposed group were 30,133, and aORs of isolated CDI and combined adverse events were 1.07 and 1.30, resulting in an NNH of 17,695 and 1,150, respectively. Females were more likely to be diagnosed with any adverse event. Overall antibiotics were found to result in 5.7 additional cases of CDI per 100,000 outpatient prescriptions following an upper respiratory tract infection.Despite higher NNH than previous methods of analysis, we find substantial iatrogenic harm associated with prescribing antibiotics in aURIs.

Although individual psychotherapy is generally effective for a range of mental health conditions, little is known about the moment-to-moment language use of effective therapists. Increased access to computational power, coupled with a rise in computer-mediated communication (telehealth), makes feasible the large-scale analyses of language use during psychotherapy. Transparent methodological approaches are lacking, however. Here we present novel methods to increase the efficiency of efforts to examine language use in psychotherapy. We evaluate three important aspects of therapist language use - timing, responsiveness, and consistency - across five clinically relevant language domains: pronouns, time orientation, emotional polarity, therapist tactics, and paralinguistic style. We find therapist language is dynamic within sessions, responds to patient language, and relates to patient symptom diagnosis but not symptom severity. Our results demonstrate that analyzing therapist language at scale is feasible and may help answer longstanding questions about specific behaviors of effective therapists.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate how variation in the way patient satisfaction feedback is delivered relates to physician well-being and perceptions of its impact on patient care, job satisfaction, and clinical decision making. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS A cross-sectional electronic survey was sent to faculty physicians from a large academic medical center in March 29, 2019. Physicians reported their exposure to feedback (timing, performance relative to peers, or channel) and related perceptions. The Professional Fulfillment Index captured burnout and professional fulfillment. Associations between feedback characteristics and well-being or perceived impact were tested using analysis of variance or logistic regression adjusted for covariates. RESULTS Of 1016 survey respondents, 569 (56.0%) reported receiving patient satisfaction feedback. Among those receiving feedback, 303 (53.2%) did not believe that this feedback improved patient care. Compared with physicians who never received feedback, those who received any type of feedback had higher professional fulfillment scores (mean, 6.6±2.1 vs 6.3±2.0; P=.03) but also reported an unfavorable impact on clinical decision making (odds ratio [OR], 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.7; P

Randomized controlled trials to improve care for complex, high-need, high-cost patients have not consistently demonstrated a relative decrease in acute care utilization or cost savings. However, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been able to glean lessons from these trials and generate realistic expectations for success. Lessons include the following: (1) combining population management tools (e.g., risk scores) and clinician judgment is more effective than either alone to identify the patients best suited for intensive management; (2) treatment adherence and engagement may contribute more to preventable emergency department visits and hospitalizations than care coordination; and (3) efforts should focus on assessing for and treating those risk factors that are most amenable to intervention. Because it is unlikely that cost savings can fund add-on intensive management programs, the VHA Office of Primary Care plans to incorporate those intensive management practices that are feasible into existing patient-centered medical homes as a high reliability organization.

PURPOSE Pre-visit planning (PVP) is believed to improve effectiveness, efficiency, and experience of care, yet numerous implementation barriers exist. There are opportunities for technology-enabled and artificial intelligence (AI) support to augment existing human-driven PVP processes—from appointment reminders and pre-visit questionnaires to pre-visit order sets and care gap closures. This study aimed to explore the current state of PVP, barriers to implementation, evidence of impact, and potential use of non-AI and AI tools to support PVP. METHODS We used an environmental scan approach involving: (1) literature review; (2) key informant interviews with PVP experts in ambulatory care; and (3) a search of the public domain for technology-enabled and AI solutions that support PVP. We then synthesized the findings using a qualitative matrix analysis. RESULTS We found 26 unique PVP implementations in the literature and conducted 16 key informant interviews. Demonstration of impact is typically limited to process outcomes, with improved patient outcomes remaining elusive. Our key informants reported that many PVP barriers are human effort–related and see potential for non-AI and AI technologies to support certain aspects of PVP. We identified 8 examples of commercially available technology-enabled tools that support PVP, some with AI capabilities; however, few of these have been independently evaluated. CONCLUSIONS As health systems transition toward value-based payment models in a world where the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has shifted patient care into the virtual space, PVP activities—driven by humans and supported by technology—may become more important and powerful and should be rigorously evaluated.

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

We examined the impact of COVID-19 on Black barbershops and their potential role as public health extenders. A 30-item survey was distributed to predominantly Black barbershop owners and barbers across 40 different states/territories in the US between June and October 2020. The survey addressed the impact of COVID-19 on Black barbershops, and barbers' interest in engaging in health outreach programs. The majority reported that stay-at-home orders had significant to severe impact on their business; few were prepared for the financial impact and less than half thought they qualified for government assistance. The majority were already providing health education and outreach to the Black community and showed interest in continuing to provide such services, like information on COVID-19. Barbers in Black-serving barbershops, a well-documented effective place for public health outreach to the Black community, show promise as public health extenders in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among patients with heart failure (HF), patient-reported health status provides information beyond standard clinician assessment. Although HF management guidelines recommend collecting patient-reported health status as part of routine care, there is minimal data on the impact of this intervention.The Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic (PRO-HF) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial testing the hypothesis that routine health status assessment via the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) leads to an improvement in patient-reported health status among patients treated in a tertiary health system HF clinic. PRO-HF has completed randomization of 1,248 participants to routine KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. Patients randomized to the KCCQ-12 arm complete KCCQ-12 assessments before each HF clinic visit with the results shared with their treating clinician. Clinicians received education regarding the interpretation and potential utility of the KCCQ-12. The primary endpoint is the change in KCCQ-12 over 1 year. Secondary outcomes are HF therapy patterns and health care utilization, including clinic visits, testing, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits. As a sub-study, PRO-HF will also evaluate the impact of routine KCCQ-12 assessment on patient experience and the accuracy of clinician-assessed health status. In addition, clinicians completed semi-structured interviews to capture their perceptions on the trial's implementation of routine KCCQ-12 assessment in clinical practice.PRO-HF is a pragmatic, randomized trial based in a real-world HF clinic to determine the feasibility of routinely assessing patient-reported health status and the impact of this intervention on health status, care delivery, patient experience, and the accuracy of clinician health status assessment.

ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial impact on the overall rate of death in the United States during the first year. It is unclear whether access to comprehensive medical care, such as through the VA healthcare system, altered death rates compared to the US population.ObjectiveQuantify the increase in death rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the general US population and among individuals who receive comprehensive medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).DesignAnalysis of changes in all-cause death rates by quarter, stratified by age, sex race/ethnicity, and region, based on individual-level data. Hierarchical regression models were fit in a Bayesian setting. Standardized rates were used for comparison between populations.Setting and participantsGeneral population of the United States, enrollees in the VA, and active users of VA healthcare.Exposure and main outcomeChanges in rates of death from any cause during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared to previous years.ResultsSharp increases were apparent across all of the adult age groups (25 years and older) in both the general US population and the VA populations. Across all of 2020, the relative increase in death rates was similar in the general US population (RR: 1.20 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.22)), VA enrollees (RR: 1.20 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.29)), and VA active users (RR: 1.19 (95% CI: 1.14, 1.26)). Because the pre-pandemic standardized mortality rates were higher in the VA populations prior to the pandemic, the absolute rates of excess mortality were higher in the VA populations.Conclusions and RelevanceDespite access to comprehensive medical care, active users of the VA had similar relative mortality increases from all causes compared with the general US population. Factors that influenced baseline rates of death and that mitigated viral transmission in the community are more likely to have influenced the impact of the pandemic.

Many healthcare delivery systems have developed clinician-led quality improvement (QI) initiatives but fewer have also developed in-house evaluation units. Engagement between the two entities creates unique opportunities. Stanford Medicine funded a collaboration between their Improvement Capability Development Program (ICDP), which coordinates and incentivizes clinician-led QI efforts, and the Evaluation Sciences Unit (ESU), a multidisciplinary group of embedded researchers with expertise in implementation and evaluation sciences.To describe the ICDP-ESU partnership and report key learnings from the first 2 y of operation September 2019 to August 2021.Department-level physician and operational QI leaders were offered an ESU consultation to workshop design, methods, and overall scope of their annual QI projects. A steering committee of high-level stakeholders from operational, clinical, and research perspectives subsequently selected three projects for in-depth partnered evaluation with the ESU based on evaluability, importance to the health system, and broader relevance. Selected project teams met regularly with the ESU to develop mixed methods evaluations informed by relevant implementation science frameworks, while aligning the evaluation approach with the clinical teams' QI goals.Sixty and 62 ICDP projects were initiated during the 2 cycles, respectively, across 18 departments, of which ESU consulted with 15 (83%). Within each annual cycle, evaluators made actionable, summative findings rapidly available to partners to inform ongoing improvement. Other reported benefits of the partnership included rapid adaptation to COVID-19 needs, expanded clinician evaluation skills, external knowledge dissemination through scholarship, and health system-wide knowledge exchange. Ongoing considerations for improving the collaboration included the need for multi-year support to enable nimble response to dynamic health system needs and timely data access.Presence of embedded evaluation partners in the enterprise-wide QI program supported identification of analogous endeavors (eg, telemedicine adoption) and cross-cutting lessons across QI efforts, clinician capacity building, and knowledge dissemination through scholarship.

Health systems are challenged to provide equitable access to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outpatient care during the pandemic. Infected patients may have difficulties accessing regular care and rely on emergency rooms. With the goal to improve system efficiencies and access to care, Stanford launched a designated outpatient COVID-19 "Care and Respiratory Observation of Patients With Novel Coronavirus" clinic in April 2020 in which all adult Stanford patients with newly diagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were offered follow-up for 2-3 weeks through video, telephone, and in-person encounters. Patients were triaged into risk categories and received home pulse oximeters based on a standardized protocol. Between April 15, 2020, and March 26, 2021, the Care and Respiratory Observation of Patients With Novel Coronavirus clinic enrolled 1317 patients. The clinic provided evaluation of Patients under Investigation, management of acute COVID-19 symptoms, care for COVID-19 patients after hospital discharge, clinical advice, and opportunities for research. The authors share crucial implementation lessons related to team agility, care personalization, and resource optimization.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value. OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients. DESIGN: A total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: High-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites. APPROACH: We used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects. KEY RESULTS: Patients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort’s numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC’s effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06869-4.