Comparing Post-Acute Populations and Care in Veterans Affairs and Community Nursing Homes

Insomnia Symptoms and Environmental Disruptors: A Preliminary Evaluation of Veterans in a Subacute Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate insomnia symptoms and environmental disruptors at admission and discharge in a subacute rehabilitation care setting.

METHODS

Veterans (age ≥50) admitted to a Veterans Health Administration (VA) Hospital subacute rehabilitation between March and August 2022 completed baseline (N = 46) and follow up (N = 33) assessments with the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Sleep Need Questionnaire (SNQ), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and an assessment of environmental sleep disruptors. Veterans were offered sleep resources after admission evaluations and outpatient referrals after discharge evaluations. Pearson correlation determined associations between length of stay (LOS), ISI, SNQ, and ESS scores at admission and discharge; chi-square and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests compared insomnia at admission and discharge.

RESULTS

One-half of participants reported clinically meaningful insomnia symptoms and sleep needs at baseline with no significant change at discharge. Almost all (89.1%) Veterans reported sleep was disturbed by environmental factors, primarily staff awakenings. LOS was correlated with ESS scores at discharge (r = .52, p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Environmental sleep disruption was common during a subacute rehabilitation admission and were not adequately addressed through sleep resources and treatment due to low uptake.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Providers should assess sleep at admission and lessen environmental sleep disruptors by reducing noise, light, and non-essential awakenings at night.

Quality Improvement Efforts in VA Community Living Centers Following Public Reporting of Performance

For two decades, the U.S. government has publicly reported performance measures for most nursing homes, spurring some improvements in quality. Public reporting is new, however, to Department of Veterans Affairs nursing homes (Community Living Centers [CLCs]). As part of a large, public integrated healthcare system, CLCs operate with unique financial and market incentives. Thus, their responses to public reporting may differ from private sector nursing homes. In three CLCs with varied public ratings, we used an exploratory, qualitative case study approach involving semi-structured interviews to compare how CLC leaders (n = 12) perceived public reporting and its influence on quality improvement. Across CLCs, respondents said public reporting was helpful for transparency and to provide an "outside perspective" on CLC performance. Respondents described employing similar strategies to improve their public ratings: using data, engaging staff, and clearly defining staff roles vis-à-vis quality improvement, although more effort was required to implement change in lower performing CLCs. Our findings augment those from prior studies and offer new insights into the potential for public reporting to spur quality improvement in public nursing homes and those that are part of integrated healthcare systems.

We have the technology: Why aren't better blood pressure data available from nursing home residents?

This editorial comments on the article by Liu et al. in this issue.

Veterans Health Administration (VA) vs. Non-VA Healthcare Quality: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Administration (VA) serves Veterans in the nation's largest integrated healthcare system. VA seeks to provide high quality of healthcare to Veterans, but due to the VA Choice and MISSION Acts, VA increasingly pays for care outside of its system in the community. This systematic review compares care provided in VA and non-VA settings, and includes published studies from 2015 to 2023, updating 2 prior systematic reviews on this topic.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 2015 to 2023 for published literature comparing VA and non-VA care, including VA-paid community care. Records were included at the abstract or full-text level if they compared VA medical care with care provided in other healthcare systems, and included clinical quality, safety, access, patient experience, efficiency (cost), or equity outcomes. Data from included studies was abstracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were synthesized narratively and via graphical evidence maps.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included after screening 2415 titles. Twelve studies compared VA and VA-paid community care. Most studies assessed clinical quality and safety, and studies of access were second most common. Only six studies assessed patient experience and six assessed cost or efficiency. Clinical quality and safety of VA care was better than or equal to non-VA care in most studies. Patient experience in VA care was better than or equal to experience in non-VA care in all studies, but access and cost/efficiency outcomes were mixed.

DISCUSSION

VA care is consistently as good as or better than non-VA care in terms of clinical quality and safety. Access, cost/efficiency, and patient experience between the two systems are not well studied. Further research is needed on these outcomes and on services widely used by Veterans in VA-paid community care, like physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED): a protocol for an implementation study in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

Empirical evidence supports the use of structured goals of care conversations and documentation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) preferences in durable, accessible, and actionable orders to improve the care for people living with serious illness. As the largest integrated healthcare system in the USA, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) provides an excellent environment to test implementation strategies that promote this evidence-based practice. The Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED) program seeks to improve care outcomes for seriously ill Veterans by supporting efforts to conduct goals of care conversations, systematically document LST preferences, and ensure timely and accurate communication about preferences across VA and non-VA settings.

METHODS

PERSIVED encompasses two separate but related implementation projects that support the same evidence-based practice. Project 1 will enroll 12 VA Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) programs and Project 2 will enroll six VA Community Nursing Home (CNH) programs. Both projects begin with a pre-implementation phase during which data from diverse stakeholders are gathered to identify barriers and facilitators to adoption of the LST evidence-based practice. This baseline assessment is used to tailor quality improvement activities using audit with feedback and implementation facilitation during the implementation phase. Site champions serve as the lynchpin between the PERSIVED project team and site personnel. PERSIVED teams support site champions through monthly coaching sessions. At the end of implementation, baseline site process maps are updated to reflect new steps and procedures to ensure timely conversations and documentation of treatment preferences. During the sustainability phase, intense engagement with champions ends, at which point champions work independently to maintain and improve processes and outcomes. Ongoing process evaluation, guided by the RE-AIM framework, is used to monitor Reach, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance outcomes. Effectiveness will be assessed using several endorsed clinical metrics for seriously ill populations.

DISCUSSION

The PERSIVED program aims to prevent potentially burdensome LSTs by consistently eliciting and documenting values, goals, and treatment preferences of seriously ill Veterans. Working with clinical operational partners, we will apply our findings to HBPC and CNH programs throughout the national VA healthcare system during a future scale-out period.

Opioid administration trends among long-stay community living centers residents with dementia

BACKGROUND

Pain assessment and management of Veterans with Alzheimer's disease and Related Dementia (ADRD) living in Community Living Centers (CLCs) is challenging. Safe and effective use of opioids in the treatment of pain is of great concern to patients and providers promulgating national policies and guidelines.

METHODS

This study examined long-stay CLC Veterans with ADRD identified in three regulatory periods (period 1: 10/2012-6/2013, n = 3347; period 2: 1/2014-11/2015, n = 4426; period 3: 1/2017-9/2018, n = 4444; Total N = 12,217).This population-based observational study used CLC Minimum Data Set (MDS) data in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2013-2018 and VA bar-code medication administration (BCMA) data. Opioid administration measures included: any opioids, long-term opioids, high-dose opioids, and co-administration with benzodiazepine. Measures were modeled using negative binomial regression with length of stay in CLC as offset adjusting for Veteran predisposing, enabling and need measures from the MDS.

RESULTS

Compared to period 1, any opioid administration was 26% lower in period 2, and 34% lower in period 3. Among Veterans who received any opioid medications over the three regulatory periods, high-dose and long-term opioid administration were more than 40% lower in periods 2 and 3 compared to period 1. Co-administration of opioid with benzodiazepine versus no opioid was 11% lower in period 2 and 34% lower in period 3 after adjusting for patient level covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

All patterns of opioid administration decreased over the four opioid regulations periods when guidelines were promulgated across the VA health system. Further research should clarify whether decreasing opioids among patients with ADRD impacted health outcomes.