Effects of Intensive Primary Care on High-Need Patient Experiences: Survey Findings from a Veterans Affairs Randomized Quality Improvement Trial

Intensity, Characteristics, and Factors Associated With Receipt of Care Coordination Among High-Risk Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has initiatives underway to enhance the provision of care coordination (CC), particularly among high-risk Veterans. Yet, evidence detailing the characteristics of and who receives VHA CC is limited.

OBJECTIVES

We examined intensity, timing, setting, and factors associated with VHA CC among high-risk Veterans.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study, following Veterans for 1 year after being identified as high-risk for hospitalization or mortality, to characterize their CC. Demographic and clinical factors predictive of CC were identified via multivariate logistic regression.

SUBJECTS

A total of 1,843,272 VHA-enrolled high-risk Veterans in fiscal years 2019-2021.

MEASURES

We measured 5 CC variables during the year after Veterans were identified as high risk: (1) receipt of any service, (2) number of services received, (3) number of days to first service, (4) number of days between services, and (5) type of visit during which services were received.

RESULTS

Overall, 31% of high-risk Veterans in the sample received CC during one-year follow-up. Among Veterans who received ≥1 service, a median of 2 [IQR (1, 6)] services were received. Among Veterans who received ≥2 services, there was a median of 26 [IQR (10, 57)] days between services. Most services were received during outpatient psychiatry (46%) or medicine (16%) visits. Veterans' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were associated with receipt of CC.

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of Veterans received CC in the year after being identified as high-risk, and there was variation in intensity, timing, and setting of CC. Research is needed to examine the fit between Veterans' CC needs and preferences and VHA CC delivery.

Implementing evidence-based practices to improve primary care for high-risk patients: study protocol for the VA high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) type III effectiveness-implementation trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with significant multimorbidity and other factors that make healthcare challenging to access and coordinate are at high risk for poor health outcomes. Although most (93%) of Veterans' Health Administration (VHA) patients at high risk for hospitalization or death ("high-risk Veterans") are primarily managed by primary care teams, few of these teams have implemented evidence-based practices (EBPs) known to improve outcomes for the high-risk patient population's complex healthcare issues. Effective implementation strategies could increase adoption of these EBPs in primary care; however, the most effective implementation strategies to increase evidence-based care for high-risk patients are unknown. The high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) will compare two variants of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) strategies to implement two distinct EBPs for high-risk Veterans: individual coaching (EBQI-IC; tailored training with individual implementation sites to meet site-specific needs) versus learning collaborative (EBQI-LC; implementation sites trained in groups to encourage collaboration among sites). One EBP, Comprehensive Assessment and Care Planning (CACP), guides teams in addressing patients' cognitive, functional, and social needs through a comprehensive care plan. The other EBP, Medication Adherence Assessment (MAA), addresses common challenges to medication adherence using a patient-centered approach.

METHODS

We will recruit and randomize 16 sites to either EBQI-IC or EBQI-LC to implement one of the EBPs, chosen by the site. Each site will have a site champion (front-line staff) who will participate in 18 months of EBQI facilitation.

ANALYSIS

We will use a mixed-methods type 3 hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation trial to test EBQI-IC versus EBQI-LC versus usual care using a Concurrent Stepped Wedge design. We will use the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) framework to compare and evaluate Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and costs. We will then assess the maintenance/sustainment and spread of both EBPs in primary care after the 18-month implementation period. Our primary outcome will be Reach, measured by the percentage of eligible high-risk patients who received the EBP.

DISCUSSION

Our study will identify which implementation strategy is most effective overall, and under various contexts, accounting for unique barriers, facilitators, EBP characteristics, and adaptations. Ultimately this study will identify ways for primary care clinics and teams to choose implementation strategies that can improve care and outcomes for patients with complex healthcare needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05050643. Registered September 9th, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05050643 PROTOCOL VERSION: This protocol is Version 1.0 which was created on 6/3/2020.

Systematic review of contemporary interventions for improving discharge support and transitions of care from the patient experience perspective

AIM

To synthesize the impact of improvement interventions related to care coordination, discharge support and care transitions on patient experience measures.

METHOD

Systematic review. Searches were completed in six scientific databases, five specialty journals, and through snowballing. Eligibility included studies published in English (2015-2023) focused on improving care coordination, discharge support, or transitional care assessed by standardized patient experience measures as a primary outcome. Two independent reviewers made eligibility decisions and performed quality appraisals.

RESULTS

Of 1240 papers initially screened, 16 were included. Seven studies focused on care coordination activities, including three randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. These studies used enhanced supports such as improvement coaching or tailoring for vulnerable populations within Patient-Centered Medical Homes or other primary care sites. Intervention effectiveness was mixed or neutral relative to standard or models of care or simpler supports (e.g., improvement tool). Eight studies, including three RCTs, focused on enhanced discharge support, including patient education (e.g., teach back) and telephone follow-up; mixed or neutral results on the patient experience were also found and with more substantive risks of bias. One pragmatic trial on a transitional care intervention, using a navigator support, found significant changes only for the subset of uninsured patients and in one patient experience outcome, and had challenges with implementation fidelity.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced supports for improving care coordination, discharge education, and post-discharge follow-up had mixed or neutral effectiveness for improving the patient experience with care, compared to standard care or simpler improvement approaches. There is a need to advance the body of evidence on how to improve the patient experience with discharge support and transitional approaches.

Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis

OBJECTIVE

Chronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM.

DESIGN

Secondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.

SETTING

Five integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions.

PARTICIPANTS

Staff and high-risk PC patients in the VA.

INTERVENTION

A multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.

OUTCOME MEASURES

(a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain.

RESULTS

Most (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.

Understanding care coordination for Veterans with complex care needs: protocol of a multiple-methods study to build evidence for an effectiveness and implementation study

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.

Prevalence of One-Year Mortality after Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Placement: An Opportunity for Palliative Care?

Background: Current guidelines recommend against placement of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with a life expectancy less than one year. These patients may benefit from early palliative care services; however, identifying this population is challenging. Objective: Determine whether a validated prognostic tool, based on patient factors and health care utilization from electronic medical records, accurately predicts one-year mortality at the time of implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement. Design: We used the United States (U.S.) Veterans Administration's "Care Assessment Needs" one-Year Mortality Score to identify patients at high risk of mortality (score ≥95) before their procedure. Data were extracted from the Corporate Data Warehouse. Logistic regression was used to assess the odds of mortality at different score levels. Setting/Subjects: Patients undergoing a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedure between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2017 in the U.S. Veterans Administration. Results: Of 3194 patients with a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator placed, 657 (21.8%) had a score ≥95. The mortality rate among these patients was 151/657 (22.9%) compared with 281/3194 (8.8%) for all patients undergoing a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedure. Patients with a score ≥95 had 14.0 (95% confidence interval 8.0-24.4) higher odds of death within one year of the procedure compared with those with a score ≤60. Conclusions: The "Care Assessment Needs" Score is a valid predictor of one-year mortality following implantable cardioverter defibrillator procedures. Integrating its use into the management of Veterans Administration (VA) patients considering implantable cardioverter defibrillators may improve shared decision making and engagement with palliative care.

High-Risk Patient Experiences Associated With an Intensive Primary Care Management Program in the Veterans Health Administration

Intensive management programs may improve health care experiences among high-risk and complex patients. We assessed patient experience among (1) prior enrollees (n = 59) of an intensive management program (2014-2018); (2) nonenrollees (n = 356) at program sites; and (3) nonprogram site patients (n = 728), using a patient survey based on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems in 2019. Outcomes included patient ratings of patient-centered care; overall health care experience; and satisfaction with their usual outpatient care provider. In multivariate models, enrollees were more satisfied with their current provider versus nonenrollees within program sites (adjusted odds ratio 2.36; 95% confidence interval 1.15-4.85).

Quality Measures for Patients at Risk of Adverse Outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration: Expert Panel Recommendations

IMPORTANCE

Despite longstanding efforts to improve health care quality for patients with complex needs who are at highest risk for hospitalization or death, to our knowledge, no guidance exists on what constitutes measurable high-quality care for this heterogeneous population. Identifying quality measures that are cross-cutting (ie, relevant to multiple chronic conditions and disease states) may enable health care professionals and health care systems to better design and report on quality improvement efforts for this patient population.

OBJECTIVE

To identify quality measures of care and prioritize quality-of-care concepts in the ambulatory primary care setting for patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who have complex care needs and are at high risk for adverse outcomes, such as hospitalization or death.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

In this expert panel assessment and prioritization, relevant measure concepts for future quality measure development in 3 care categories (assessment, management, and other features of health care) were extracted from a systematic review, conducted from June 2020 to June 2021, of published studies that suggested, evaluated, or used indicators of quality care for patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Measure concepts associated with single conditions, surgical or other specialty care settings, and inpatient care were excluded. A panel of 14 experts (10 VHA leaders and staff, 2 non-VHA physician investigators, and 2 veterans) discussed and rated the importance of the remaining set of potentially relevant measure concepts using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method on January 15, 2021. Measure concepts were rated on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 being the highest priority. A median rating of 7.5 or greater was used as the cutoff to identify the highest-priority items.

FINDINGS

The systematic review identified 519 measure concepts, from which 15 domains and 49 measure concepts were proposed for expert panel consideration. After panel discussions and changes to measure concepts, the expert panel rated 63 measure concepts in 13 domains. The measure concepts with the highest median ratings focused on caregiver availability and support, COVID-19 vaccination, and pneumonia vaccination (all rated 9.0); housing instability (rated 8.5); and physical function, depression symptoms, cognitive impairment, prescription regimen, primary care follow-up after an emergency department visit or hospitalization, and timely transmission of discharge information to primary care (all rated 8.0). Recommendations to improve care included timely assessment of housing instability, caregiver support, physical function, depression symptoms, and cognitive impairment; annual prescription regimen review; coordinated transitions in care; and preventive care including vaccinations.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The expert panelists identified a parsimonious set of high-priority, evidence-based, cross-cutting quality measure concepts for improving care of patients at high risk for adverse health outcomes in the VHA. These quality measures may inform both future research for patients at high risk and health care system quality improvement.

Unpacking complex interventions that manage care for high-need, high-cost patients: a realist review

OBJECTIVE

Payers, providers and policymakers in the USA are interested in developing interventions that reduce preventable or modifiable healthcare use among high-need, high-cost (HNHC) patients. This study seeks to describe how and why complex interventions for HNHC patients lead to more appropriate use of healthcare services.

DESIGN

A realist review which develops programme theories from causal explanations generated and articulated through the creation of context-mechanism-outcome configurations.

METHODS

Electronic databases (including PubMed and Embase) and gray literature from January 2000 to March 2021 were searched. All study designs were included if the article provided data to develop our programme theories. Included studies were conducted in the USA and focused on interventions for adult, HNHC patients.

RESULTS

Data were synthesised from 48 studies. Identifying HNHC patients for inclusion in interventions requires capturing a combination of characteristics including their prior use of healthcare services, complexity of chronic disease(s) profile, clinician judgment and willingness to participate. Once enrolled, engaging HNHC patients in interventions requires intervention care providers and patients to build a trusting relationship. Tailored, individualised assistance for medical and non-medical needs, emotional support and self-management education empowers patients to increase their participation in managing their own care. Engagement of care providers in interventions to expand support of HNHC patients is facilitated by targeted outreach, adequate staffing support with shared values and regular and open communication.

CONCLUSIONS

Building relationships with HNHC patients and gaining their trust is a key component for interventions to successfully change HNHC patients' behaviors. Identifying HNHC patients for an intervention can be best achieved through a multipronged strategy that accounts for their clinical and psychosocial complexity and prior experiences with the healthcare system. Successful interventions recognise that relationships with HNHC patients require the sustained engagement of care providers. To succeed, providers need ongoing emotional, financial, logistical and practical resources.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020161179.

Patient selection strategies in an intensive primary care program

BACKGROUND

Intensive primary care programs have had variable impacts on clinical outcomes, possibly due to a lack of consensus on appropriate patient-selection. The US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted an intensive primary care program, known as Patient Aligned Care Team Intensive Management (PIM), in five medical centers. We sought to describe the PIM patient selection process used by PIM teams and to explore perspectives of PIM team members regarding how patient selection processes functioned in context.

METHODS

This study employs an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. We analyzed qualitative interviews with 21 PIM team and facility leaders and electronic health record (EHR) data from 2,061 patients screened between July 2014 and September 2017 for PIM enrollment. Qualitative data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 1,887 patients identified for PIM services using standardized criteria, over half were deemed inappropriate for PIM services, either because of not having an ambulatory care sensitive condition, living situation, or were already receiving recommended care. Qualitative analysis found that team members considered standardized criteria to be a useful starting point but too broad to be relied on exclusively. Additional data collection through chart review and communication with the current primary care team was needed to adequately assess patient complexity. Qualitative analysis further found that differences in conceptualizing program goals led to conflicting opinions of which patients should be enrolled in PIM.

CONCLUSIONS

A combined approach that includes clinical judgment, case review, standardized criteria, and targeted program goals are all needed to support appropriate patient selection processes.

An Intensive Intervention to Reduce Readmissions for Frequently Hospitalized Patients: the CHAMP Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

A small number of patients are disproportionally readmitted to hospitals. The Complex High Admission Management Program (CHAMP) was established as a multidisciplinary program to improve continuity of care and reduce readmissions for frequently hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE

To compare hospital utilization metrics among patients enrolled in CHAMP and usual care.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Inclusion criteria were as follows: 3 or more, 30-day inpatient readmissions in the previous year; or 2 inpatient readmissions plus either a referral or 3 observation admissions in previous 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients randomized to CHAMP were managed by an interdisciplinary team including social work, physicians, and pharmacists. The CHAMP team used comprehensive care planning and inpatient, outpatient, and community visits to address both medical and social needs. Control patients were randomized to usual care and contacted 18 months after initial identification if still eligible.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcome was number of 30-day inpatient readmissions 180 days following enrollment. Secondary outcomes were number of hospital admissions, total hospital days, emergency department visits, and outpatient clinic visits 180 days after enrollment.

KEY RESULTS

There were 75 patients enrolled in CHAMP, 76 in control. Groups were similar in demographic characteristics and baseline readmissions. At 180 days following enrollment, CHAMP patients had more inpatient 30-day readmissions [CHAMP incidence rate 1.3 (95% CI 0.9-1.8) vs. control 0.8 (95% CI 0.5-1.1), p=0.04], though both groups had fewer readmissions compared to 180 days prior to enrollment. We found no differences in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequently hospitalized patients experienced reductions in utilization over time. Though most outcomes showed no difference, CHAMP was associated with higher readmissions compared to a control group, possibly due to consolidation of care at a single hospital. Future research should seek to identify subsets of patients with persistently high utilization for whom tailored interventions may be beneficial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03097640; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03097640.

Outcomes that Matter: High-Needs Patients' and Primary Care Leaders' Perspectives on an Intensive Primary Care Pilot

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).

What Is the Return on Investment of Caring for Complex High-need, High-cost Patients?

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.

Outcomes of a randomized quality improvement trial for high-risk Veterans in year two

OBJECTIVE

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) conducted a randomized quality improvement evaluation to determine whether augmenting patient-centered medical homes with Primary care Intensive Management (PIM) decreased utilization of acute care and health care costs among patients at high risk for hospitalization. PIM was cost-neutral in the first year; we analyzed changes in utilization and costs in the second year.

DATA SOURCES

VHA administrative data for five demonstration sites from August 2013 to March 2019.

DATA SOURCES

Administrative data extracted from VHA's Corporate Data Warehouse.

STUDY DESIGN

Veterans with a risk of 90-day hospitalization in the top 10th percentile and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit were randomly assigned to usual primary care vs primary care augmented by PIM. PIM included interdisciplinary teams, comprehensive patient assessment, intensive case management, and care coordination services. We compared the change in mean VHA inpatient and outpatient utilization and costs (including PIM expenses) per patient for the 12-month period before randomization and 13-24 months after randomization for PIM vs usual care using difference-in-differences.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Both PIM patients (n = 1902) and usual care patients (n = 1882) had a mean of 5.6 chronic conditions. PIM patients had a greater number of primary care visits compared to those in usual care (mean 4.6 visits/patient/year vs 3.7 visits/patient/year, p < 0.05), but ED visits (p = 0.45) and hospitalizations (p = 0.95) were not significantly different. We found a small relative increase in outpatient costs among PIM patients compared to those in usual care (mean difference + $928/patient/year, p = 0.053), but no significant differences in mean inpatient costs (+$245/patient/year, p = 0.97). Total mean health care costs were similar between the two groups during the second year (mean difference + $1479/patient/year, p = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Approaches that target patients solely based on the high risk of hospitalization are unlikely to reduce acute care use or total costs in VHA, which already offers patient-centered medical homes.

Sex Differences in Use of a Clinical Complexity Measure to Predict Primary Care Utilization

Background: The Veterans Affairs (VA)-developed Care Assessment Need (CAN) score, a risk-stratification tool used to identify complex high-risk patients and guide VA care coordination, was designed to predict hospitalization or death. Little is known about its utility in predicting primary care utilization or if gender differences in this metric are detectable. Our objective was to determine association of CAN score quintiles with high primary care visit (PCV) utilization among Veterans, the impact of adding reproductive health and psychosocial variables to the model and the difference between men and women Veterans. Methods: The sample included men and women from the post-9/11 cohort receiving VA care for at least 1 year, 2010-2017 (N = 665,379). PCV data for each year were collected from national Corporate Data Warehouse. A cumulative count ≥6 visits in a year was used as an indication for high PCV utilization in the analyses. Results: After accounting for potential confounding factors, women were associated with 42% higher odds of heavy PCV utilization (adjusted odds ratio: 1.42, 95% confidence interval: 1.37-1.46) than men. However, there was a significant interaction between sex and CAN quintiles (p < 0.001). After adjusting for all the covariates, CAN score quintiles appeared to have stronger associations and better predictive accuracy on the risk of 1-year heavy PCV utilization for men than for women. Conclusion: Further research is needed to understand sex differences in Veterans Health Administration clinical complexity measures and whether they can be successfully used to identify high-risk, high-utilizing women Veterans.

Use of Video Telehealth Tablets to Increase Access for Veterans Experiencing Homelessness

BACKGROUND

Veterans experiencing homelessness face substantial barriers to accessing health and social services. In 2016, the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system launched a unique program to distribute video-enabled tablets to Veterans with access barriers.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the use of VA-issued video telehealth tablets among Veterans experiencing homelessness in the VA system.

DESIGN

Guided by the RE-AIM framework, we first evaluated the adoption of tablets among Veterans experiencing homelessness and housed Veterans. We then analyzed health record and tablet utilization data to compare characteristics of both subpopulations, and used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with tablet use among Veterans experiencing homelessness.

PATIENTS

In total, 12,148 VA patients receiving tablets between October 2017 and March 2019, focusing on the 1470 VA Veterans experiencing homelessness receiving tablets (12.1%).

MAIN MEASURES

Tablet use within 6 months of receipt for mental health, primary or specialty care.

KEY RESULTS

Nearly half (45.9%) of Veterans experiencing homelessness who received a tablet had a video visit within 6 months of receipt, most frequently for telemental health. Tablet use was more common among Veterans experiencing homelessness who were younger (AOR = 2.77; P <.001); middle-aged (AOR = 2.28; P <.001); in rural settings (AOR = 1.46; P =.005); and those with post-traumatic stress disorder (AOR = 1.64; P <.001), and less common among those who were Black (AOR = 0.43; P <.001) and those with a substance use disorder (AOR = 0.59; P <.001) or persistent housing instability (AOR = 0.75; P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth care and connection for vulnerable populations are particularly salient during the COVID-19 pandemic but also beyond. VA's distribution of video telehealth tablets offers healthcare access to Veterans experiencing homelessness; however, barriers remain for subpopulations. Tailored training and support for these patients may be needed to optimize telehealth tablet use and effectiveness.

Details of developing and implementing an intensive interdisciplinary care program for high need, high cost patients

1. Developing and implementing an intensive interdisciplinary medical home within a large academic medical center was feasible. 2. Deploying a complex care management program that shared staff and resources with an intensive primary care program was not successful. 3. Barriers included traversing legal barriers to text messaging patients, making hospital consults feasible financially, managing challenging patients, team wellness, provider back up, managing homebound patients, and discharging patients. 4. Although expensive, this model may have hidden benefits including improved patient satisfaction, quality of care, and providing a solid care system for a health system's most challenging and vulnerable population.

A systematic review of intensive outpatient care programs for high-need, high-cost patients

Five percent of the patient population accounts for 50% of U.S. healthcare expenditures. High-need, high-cost patients are medically complex for numerous reasons, often including behavioral health needs. Intensive outpatient care programs (IOCPs) are emerging, innovative clinics which provide patient-centered care leveraging multidisciplinary teams. The overarching goals of IOCPs are to reduce emergency department visits and hospitalizations (and related costs), and improve care continuity and patient outcomes. The purpose of this review was to examine the effectiveness of IOCPs on multiple outcomes to inform clinical care. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify articles. Six studies were included that varied in rigor of research design, analysis, and measurement of outcomes. Most studies reported results on healthcare utilization (n = 4) and costs (n = 3), with fewer reporting results on patient-reported and health-related outcomes (n = 2). Overall, there were decreasing trends in emergency department visits and hospitalizations. However, results on healthcare utilization varied based on time of follow-up, with shorter follow-up times yielding more significant results. Two of the three studies that evaluated costs found significant reductions associated with IOCPs, and the third was cost-neutral. Two studies reported improvements in patient-reported outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, depression, and anxiety). Overall, these programs reported positive impacts on healthcare utilization and costs; however, few studies evaluated patient characteristics and behaviors (e.g., engagement in care) which may serve as key mechanisms of program effectiveness. Future research should examine patient characteristics, behaviors, and clinic engagement metrics to inform clinical practice.

Regulatory, Legal, and Ethical Considerations of Telemedicine

Sleep telemedicine practitioners must ensure their practice complies with all applicable institutional, state, and federal regulations. Providers must be licensed in any state in which they provide care, have undergone credentialing and privileging procedures at outside facilities, and avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest while providing that care. Internet-based prescribing remains limited to certain circumstances. Whether or not a malpractice insurance policy covers telemedicine depends on the insurer, especially if interstate care is provided. All telemedicine programs must protect patient health information. Similarly, bioethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice apply to both in-person and telemedicine-based care.