Women Veterans' Attrition from the VA Health Care System

Appointment wait times for surgical care in the Veterans Health Administration and Community Care Program

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Administration has been criticized for long wait times; however, studies indicate that Veterans Health Administration wait times are shorter than those for the Veterans Health Administration's Community Care Program. Previous studies have analyzed primary care wait times, but few have compared surgical specialties.

METHODS

Using a publicly available data set of veteran appointments compiled from the Veterans Health Administration's Corporate Data Warehouse, a nationally representative database containing 623,868 surgical consults from January 1 to June 30, 2021, mean differences in wait times between the Veterans Health Administration and the Community Care Program were calculated across surgical specialties.

RESULTS

In total, 49.6% of the surgical consults placed during the study period were for the Community Care Program. Across all surgical specialties, wait times were shorter in the Veterans Health Administration. Cardiothoracic surgery had the shortest mean wait times (23.1 days Veterans Health Administration; 30.0 days Community Care Program). The greatest difference in wait times was observed in plastic surgery, with Community Care Program appointments occurring 15.8 days later than Veterans Health Administration appointments on average.

CONCLUSION

Across all surgical specialties, the Veterans Health Administration had shorter wait times than the Community Care Program during the study period.

An Innovation to Expand the Reach of Peer Support: A Feasibility and Acceptability Study

INTRODUCTION

Peer support is a well-established part of veteran care and a cost-effective way to support individuals pursuing health behavior change. Common models of peer support, peer coaching, and mutual peer support have limitations that could be minimized by building on the strengths of each to increase the overall reach and effectiveness. We conducted a 12-week, proof-of-concept study to test the acceptability and feasibility of a hybrid model of peer support which supplements dyadic mutual peer support with as-needed peer coaching.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We tested our novel peer support model within the context of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction as a support mechanism for the promotion of heart-healthy diet and exercise behaviors. We recruited peer buddies (participants who would be matched with each other to provide mutual support) with at least one uncontrolled CVD risk factor (i.e., blood pressure, weight, or diabetes) and peer coaches (individuals who would provide additional, as-needed support for peer buddies) with a recent history of CVD health behavior improvement. We aimed for 50% of peer buddies to be women to assess for potential gender differences in intervention engagement. Participants received didactic instruction during three group sessions, and peer dyads were instructed to communicate weekly with their peer buddy to problem-solve around action plans and behavioral goals. We tracked frequency of dyadic communication and conducted semi-structured interviews at the intervention's end to assess acceptability.

RESULTS

We recruited three peer coaches and 12 peer buddies. Ten buddies (five dyads) met at the first group session, and all were still in weekly contact with each other at week 12. Peer buddies had a mean of 8.75 out of 12 possible weekly peer buddy communications (range 6-15 in total). Peer coaches provided additional support to four participants over 12 weeks. Participants reported liking the intervention, including mixed-gender groups. Clarity and expectation setting around the role of peer coaches were important.

CONCLUSIONS

The supplementation of mutual peer support with as-needed peer coaching is an acceptable and feasible way to expand the potential reach and effectiveness of peer support for behavior change among veterans.

Disparities in Wait Times for Care Among US Veterans by Race and Ethnicity

Importance

Prior studies indicate that Black and Hispanic vs White veterans wait longer for care. However, these studies do not capture the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused care access disruptions, nor implementation of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act (MISSION), which is intended to improve care access by increasing veterans' options to use community clinicians.

Objective

To determine whether wait times increased differentially for Black and Hispanic compared with White veterans from the pre-COVID-19 to COVID-19 periods given concurrent MISSION implementation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used data from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse for fiscal years 2019 to 2021 (October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2021). Participants included Black, Hispanic, and White veterans with a new consultation for outpatient cardiology and/or orthopedic services during the study period. Multivariable mixed-effects models were used to estimate individual-level adjusted wait times and a likelihood ratio test of the significance of wait time disparity change over time.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall mean wait times and facility-level adjusted relative mean wait time ratios.

Results

The study included 1 162 148 veterans (mean [SD] age, 63.4 [14.4] years; 80.8% men). Significant wait time disparities were evident for orthopedic services (eg, Black veterans had wait times 2.09 [95% CI, 1.57-2.61] days longer than those for White veterans) in the pre-COVID-19 period, but not for cardiology services. Mean wait times increased from the pre-COVID-19 to COVID-19 periods for both services for all 3 racial and ethnic groups (eg, Hispanic wait times for cardiology services increased 5.09 [95% CI, 3.62-6.55] days). Wait time disparities for Black veterans (4.10 [95% CI, 2.44-5.19] days) and Hispanic veterans (4.40 [95% CI, 2.76-6.05] days) vs White veterans (3.75 [95% CI, 2.30-5.19] days) increased significantly from the pre-COVID-19 to COVID-19 periods (P < .001). During the COVID-19 period, significant disparities were evident for orthopedic services (eg, mean wait times for Hispanic vs White veterans were 1.98 [95% CI, 1.32-2.64] days longer) but not for cardiology services. Although there was variation in wait time ratios across the 140 facilities, only 6 facility wait time ratios were significant during the pre-COVID-19 period and 26 during the COVID-19 period.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that wait time disparities increased from the pre-COVID-19 to COVID-19 periods, especially for orthopedic services for both Black and Hispanic veterans, despite MISSION's goal to improve access. Facility-level analyses identified potential sites that could be targeted to reduce disparities.

Patient inequities in affording surgical resident operative autonomy at Veterans Affairs teaching hospitals, does it extend to female patients?

BACKGROUND

Examining surgical resident operative autonomy within the Veterans Affairs (VA) System, we previously showed residents were afforded autonomy more frequently on Black patients. We hypothesized that, compared to males, female surgical patients receive less attending involvement and more resident autonomy during surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective review of all general/vascular surgeries performed at teaching VA hospitals from 2004 to 2019. Operative procedures are coded at the time of surgery as attending primary surgeon (AP), attending with resident (AR), or resident primary surgeon--attending not scrubbed (RP). The primary outcome was the difference in supervision rates between patient sexes.

RESULTS

618,578 operations were examined-24.9% AP, 68.9% AR, and 6.2% RP. Overall, 5.9% of cases were performed on women. The rate of RP cases was higher in males compared to females (6.3% vs 5.3%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Female veterans are less likely to have residents operate on them autonomously. Reasons for this require further characterization.

Practical and Emotional Peer Support Tailored for Life's Challenges: Personalized Support for Progress Randomized Clinical Pilot Trial in a Veterans Health Administration Women's Clinic

INTRODUCTION

Women Veterans experience a broad range of stressors (e.g., family, relationship, and financial) and high rates of mental health and physical health conditions, all of which contribute to high levels of stress. Personalized Support for Progress (PSP), an evidence-based intervention, is well suited to support women Veterans with high stress as it involves a card-sort task to prioritize concerns as well as pragmatic and emotional support to develop and implement a personalized plan addressing those concerns. Our aims were to explore the population and context for delivery and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of PSP delivered by a peer specialist to complement existing services in a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Women's Wellness Center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized controlled pilot trial compared treatment as usual plus PSP to treatment as usual and used the a priori Go/No-Go criteria to establish success for each outcome. We interviewed staff regarding the population and delivery context at a VHA Women's Wellness Center and analyzed interviews using a rapid qualitative approach. For the rapid qualitative analysis, we created templated summaries of each interview to identify key concepts within each a priori theme, reviewed each theme's content across all interviews, and finally reviewed key concepts across themes. We evaluated feasibility using recruitment and retention rates; acceptability via Veteran satisfaction, working relationship with the peer, and staff satisfaction; and utility based on the proportion of Veterans who experienced a large change in outcomes (e.g., stress, mental health symptoms, and quality of life). The Syracuse VA Human Subjects Institutional Review Board approved all procedures.

RESULTS

Staff interviews highlight that women Veterans have numerous unmet social needs and concerns common among women which increase the complexity of their care; call for a supportive, consistent, trusting relationship with someone on their health care team; and require many resources (e.g., staff such as social workers, services such as legal support, and physical items such as diapers) to support their needs (some of which are available within VHA but may need support for staffing or access, and some of which are unavailable). Feasibility outcomes suggest a need to modify PSP and research methods to enhance intervention and assessment retention before the larger trial; the recruitment rate was acceptable by the end of the trial. Veteran acceptability of PSP was high. Veteran outcomes demonstrate promise for utility to improve stress, mental health symptoms, and quality of life for women Veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high acceptability and promising outcomes for utility, changes to the design to enhance the feasibility outcomes which failed to meet the a priori Go/No-Go criteria are warranted. These outcomes support future trials of PSP within VHA Women's Wellness Centers.