Perspectives of Clinicians, Staff, and Veterans in Transitioning Veterans from non-VA Hospitals to Primary Care in a Single VA Healthcare System

Outcomes of Women Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery in Veterans Affairs Compared With Non-Veterans Affairs Care Settings

Importance

Recent legislation facilitates veterans' ability to receive non-Veterans Affairs (VA) surgical care. Although veterans are predominantly male, the number of women receiving care within the VA has nearly doubled to 10% over the past decade and recent data comparing the surgical care of women in VA and non-VA care settings are lacking.

Objective

To compare postoperative outcomes among women treated in VA hospitals vs private-sector hospitals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This coarsened exact-matched cohort study across 9 noncardiac specialties in the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) took place from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. Multivariable Poisson models with robust standard errors were used to evaluate the association between VA vs private-sector care settings and 30-day mortality. Hospitals participating in American College of Surgeons NSQIP and VASQIP were included. Data analysis was performed in January 2023. Participants included female patients 18 years old or older.

Exposures

Surgical care in VA or private-sector hospitals.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Postoperative 30-day mortality and failure to rescue (FTR).

Results

Among 1 913 033 procedures analyzed, patients in VASQIP were younger (VASQIP: mean age, 49.8 [SD, 13.0] years; NSQIP: mean age, 55.9 [SD, 16.9] years; P < .001) and although most patients in both groups identified as White, there were significantly more Black women in VASQIP compared with NSQIP (29.6% vs 12.7%; P < .001). The mean risk analysis index score was lower in VASQIP (13.9 [SD, 6.4]) compared with NSQIP (16.3 [SD, 7.8]) (P < .001 for both). Patients in the VA were more likely to have a preoperative acute serious condition (2.4% vs 1.8%: P < .001), but cases in NSQIP were more frequently emergent (6.9% vs 2.6%; P < .001). The 30-day mortality, complications, and FTR were 0.2%, 3.2%, and 0.1% in VASQIP (n = 36 762 procedures) as compared with 0.8%, 5.0%, and 0.5% in NSQIP (n = 1 876 271 procedures), respectively (all P < .001). Among 1 763 540 matched women (n = 36 478 procedures in VASQIP; n = 1 727 062 procedures in NSQIP), these rates were 0.3%, 3.7%, and 0.2% in NSQIP and 0.1%, 3.4%, and 0.1% in VASQIP (all P < .01). Relative to private-sector care, VA surgical care was associated with a lower risk of death (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.76). This finding was robust among women undergoing gynecologic surgery, inpatient surgery, and low-physiologic stress procedures. VA surgical care was also associated with lower risk of FTR (aRR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.18-0.92) for frail or Black women and inpatient and low-physiologic stress procedures.

Conclusions and Relevance

Although women comprise the minority of veterans receiving care within the VA, in this study, VA surgical care for women was associated with half the risk of postoperative death and FTR. The VA appears better equipped to meet the unique surgical needs and risk profiles of veterans, regardless of sex and health policy decisions, including funding, should reflect these important outcome differences.

Implementation of VA care coordination program to improve transitional care for veterans post-non-VA hospital discharge: an incremental cost analysis

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System Community Hospital Transitions Program (CHTP) was implemented as a nurse-led intervention to reduce barriers that patients experience when transitioning from community hospitals to VA primary care settings. A previous analysis indicated that veterans who enrolled in CHTP received timely follow-up care and communications that improved care coordination, but did not examine cost implications for the VA.

METHODS

A budget impact analysis used the VA (payer) perspective. CHTP implementation team members and study records identified key resources required to initially implement and run the CHTP. Statistical analysis of program participants and matched controls at two study sites was used to estimate incremental VA primary care costs per veteran. Using combined program implementation, operations, and healthcare cost estimates to guide key model assumptions, overall CHTP costs were estimated for a 5-year time horizon, including a discount rate of 3%, annual inflation of 2.5%, and a sensitivity analysis that considered two options for staffing the program at VA Medical Center (VAMC) sites.

RESULTS

Implementation at two VAMCs required 3 months, including central program support and site-level onboarding, with costs of $34,094 (range: $25,355-$51,602), which included direct and indirect resource costs of personnel time, materials, space, and equipment. Subsequent annual costs to run the program at each site depended heavily on the staffing mix and caseload of veterans, with a baseline estimate of $193,802 to $264,868. Patients enrolled in CHTP had post-hospitalization VA primary care costs that were higher than matched controls. Over 5 years, CHTP sites staffed to serve 25-30 veterans per full-time equivalent transition team member per month had an estimated budget impact of $625 per veteran served if the transitional team included a medical social worker to support veterans with more social behavioral needs and less complex medical cases or $815 per veteran if nurses served all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based care coordination programs that support patients' return to VA primary care after a community hospital stay are feasible to implement and run. Further, flexibility in staffing this type of program is increasingly relevant as the VA and other healthcare systems consider methods to reduce provider burnout, optimize staffing, reduce costs, and address other staffing challenges while improving patient care.

Study protocol: Type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation study implementing Age-Friendly evidence-based practices in the VA to improve outcomes in older adults

BACKGROUND

Unmet care needs among older adults accelerate cognitive and functional decline and increase medical harms, leading to poorer quality of life, more frequent hospitalizations, and premature nursing home admission. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is invested in becoming an "Age-Friendly Health System" to better address four tenets associated with reduced harm and improved outcomes among the 4 million Veterans aged 65 and over receiving VA care. These four tenets focus on "4Ms" that are fundamental to the care of older adults, including (1) what Matters (ensuring that care is consistent with each person's goals and preferences); (2) Medications (only using necessary medications and ensuring that they do not interfere with what matters, mobility, or mentation); (3) Mentation (preventing, identifying, treating, and managing dementia, depression, and delirium); and (4) Mobility (promoting safe movement to maintain function and independence). The Safer Aging through Geriatrics-Informed Evidence-Based Practices (SAGE) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) seeks to implement four evidence-based practices (EBPs) that have shown efficacy in addressing these core tenets of an "Age-Friendly Health System," leading to reduced harm and improved outcomes in older adults.

METHODS

We will implement four EBPs in 9 VA medical centers and associated outpatient clinics using a type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation stepped-wedge trial design. We selected four EBPs that align with Age-Friendly Health System principles: Surgical Pause, EMPOWER (Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results), TAP (Tailored Activities Program), and CAPABLE (Community Aging in Place - Advancing Better Living for Elders). Guided by the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), we are comparing implementation as usual vs. active facilitation. Reach is our primary implementation outcome, while "facility-free days" is our primary effectiveness outcome across evidence-based practice interventions.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale randomized effort to implement "Age-Friendly" aligned evidence-based practices. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to implementing these evidence-based practices is essential to successfully help shift current healthcare systems to become Age-Friendly. Effective implementation of this project will improve the care and outcomes of older Veterans and help them age safely within their communities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered 05 May 2021, at ISRCTN #60,657,985.

REPORTING GUIDELINES

Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (see attached).

Michigan Market Referral Coordination Initiative: a Regional Market Approach to VA Specialty Care

BACKGROUND

The Maintaining Internal Systems and Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018 was created in response to reports of prolonged wait times for veterans accessing health care within the Veterans Affairs (VA) system. In Michigan, the MISSION Act Community Care Program led to an increased number of veterans receiving specialty care outside the VA system, in part due to the complicated process of coordinating specialty care within the VA system. From 2018 to 2020, the percentage of veterans referred to the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (AA) for specialty care from its two referring facilities, Battle Creek VA Medical Center (BC) and Saginaw VA Healthcare System (SAG), decreased from 54.4 to 27%.

OBJECTIVE

Improve the number of Michigan veterans choosing VA specialty care.

INTERVENTION

In 2021, three VA facilities in Michigan (AA, BC, and SAG) created a market-level referral system named the Michigan Market Referral Initiative (MMRCI). This unique approach used a centralized nurse-driven team to manage specialty referrals, working directly with the veteran to explore both VA and community care (CC) options.

MAIN MEASURES

Referrals triaged and acceptance rates for VA care were tracked. The localized Standard Episode of Care model was used to estimate cost savings. Post-intervention AA patient wait times were compared to local CC wait times.

KEY RESULTS

In the 14 months after implementation of the MMRCI, the rate of veteran retention increased by 32.4%. The estimated dollars retained within the VA by MMRCI efforts was $24,105,251 as of 7/1/2022. Post-intervention AA wait times were superior to community care except in 3 specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

This multifacility effort is an example of a highly coordinated, veteran-centered collaboration that has led to successful retention of veterans within the VA system with resultant large-scale cost avoidance and comparable clinic wait times. Focusing on central care coordination and veteran engagement in the referral process are keys to its success, along with leveraging existing referral patterns between nearby VA facilities. This model could be extrapolated to other VA markets throughout the country where similar relationships exist.

A citation analysis and scoping systematic review of the operationalization of the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM)

Background

The Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) was developed in 2008 as a contextually expanded version of the broadly used Reach, Adoption, Effectiveness, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. PRISM provides researchers a pragmatic and intuitive model to improve translation of research interventions into clinical and community practice. Since 2008, the use of PRISM increased across diverse topics, populations, and settings. This citation analysis and scoping systematic review aimed to assess the use of the PRISM framework and to make recommendations for future research.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus) for the period of 2008 and September 2020. After exclusion, reverse citation searches and invitations to experts in the field were used to identify and obtain recommendations for additional articles not identified in the original search. Studies that integrated PRISM into their study design were selected for full abstraction. Unique research studies were abstracted for information on study characteristics (e.g., setting/population, design), PRISM contextual domains, and RE-AIM outcomes.

Results

A total of 180 articles were identified to include PRISM to some degree. Thirty-two articles representing 23 unique studies integrated PRISM within their study design. Study characteristics varied widely and included studies conducted in diverse contexts, but predominately in high-income countries and in clinical out-patient settings. With regards to use, 19 used PRISM for evaluation, 10 for planning/development, 10 for implementation, four for sustainment, and one for dissemination. There was substantial variation across studies in how and to what degree PRISM contextual domains and RE-AIM outcomes were operationalized and connected. Only two studies directly connected individual PRISM context domains with RE-AIM outcomes, and another four included RE-AIM outcomes without direct connection to PRISM domains.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review of the use of PRISM in various contexts. While there were low levels of ‘integrated’ use of PRISM and few reports on linkage to RE-AIM outcomes, most studies included important context domains of implementation and sustainability infrastructure and external environment. Recommendations are provided for more consistent and comprehensive use of and reporting on PRISM to inform both research and practice on contextual factors in implementation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01234-3.

Using a longitudinal multi-method approach to document, assess, and understand adaptations in the Veterans Health Administration Advanced Care Coordination program

Background

Understanding adaptations supports iterative refinement of the implementation process and informs scale out of programs. Systematic documentation of adaptations across the life course of programs is not routinely done, and efficient capture of adaptations in real world studies is not well understood.

Methods

We used a multi-method longitudinal approach to systematically document adaptations during pre-implementation, implementation, and sustainment for the Veteran Health Administration (VA) Advanced Care Coordination program. This approach included documenting adaptations through a real-time tracking instrument, process maps, Implementation and Evaluation (I&E) team meeting minutes, and adaptation interviews. Data collection was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) enhanced framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions (FRAME) model. Adaptations were evaluated across 9 categories, and analytic team consensus and member-checking were used to validate the results.

Results

A total of 144 individual adaptations were identified across two implementation sites and the four data sources; analytic team consensus and member-checking processes resulted in 50 unique adaptations. Most adaptations took place during the early implementation and mid-implementation phases and were: 1) planned; 2) made to address changes in program delivery; 3) made to extend a component; 4) related to the core component of the intervention concerning notification of the community emergency department visit; 5) initiated by the entire or most of the I&E team; 6) made on the basis of: pragmatic/practical considerations; 7) made with an intent to improve implementation domain (to make the intervention delivered more consistently; to better fit the local practice, patient flow or Electronic Health Record (EHR) and/or for practical reasons); 8) a result of internal influences; 9) perceived to impact the RE-AIM implementation dimension (consistent delivery of quality care or costs). I&E team meeting minutes and process maps captured the highest numbers of unique adaptations (n = 19 and n = 13, respectively).

Conclusion

Our longitudinal, multi-method approach provided a feasible way to collect adaptations data through engagement of multiple I&E team members, allowing and a broader understanding of adaptations that took place. Recommendations for future research include pragmatic assessment of the impact of adaptations and meaningful data collection without overburdening the implementing teams and front-line staff.

Gaps in Hospital and Skilled Nursing Facility Responsibilities During Transitions of Care: a Comparison of Hospital and SNF Clinicians' Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Adverse outcomes are common in transitions from hospital to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Gaps in transitional care processes contribute to these outcomes, but it is unclear whether hospital and SNF clinicians have the same perception about who is responsible for filling these gaps in care transitions.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand the perspectives of hospital and SNF clinicians on their roles and responsibilities in transitional care processes, to identify areas of congruence and gaps that could be addressed to improve transitions.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews with interdisciplinary hospital and SNF providers.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-one clinicians across 3 hospitals and 3 SNFs including nurses (8), social workers (7), physicians (8), physical and occupational therapists (12), and other staff (6).

APPROACH

Using team-based approach to deductive analysis, we mapped responses to the 10 domains of the Ideal Transitions of Care Framework (ITCF) to identify areas of agreement and gaps between hospitals and SNFs.

KEY RESULTS

Although both clinician groups had similar conceptions of an ideal transitions of care, their perspectives included significant gaps in responsibilities in 8 of the 10 domains of ITCF, including Discharge Planning; Complete Communication of Information; Availability, Timeliness, Clarity and Organization of Information; Medication Safety; Educating Patients to Promote Self-Management; Enlisting Help of Social and Community Supports; Coordinating Care Among Team Members; and Managing Symptoms After Discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

As hospitals and SNFs increasingly are held jointly responsible for the outcomes of patients transitioning between them, clarity in roles and responsibilities between hospital and SNF staff are needed. Improving transitions of care may require site-level efforts, joint hospital-SNF initiatives, and national financial, regulatory, and technological fixes. In the meantime, building effective hospital-SNF partnerships is increasingly important to delivering high-quality care to a vulnerable older adult population.

Understanding VA's Use of and Relationships With Community Care Providers Under the MISSION Act

BACKGROUND

Congress has enacted 2 major pieces of legislation to improve access to care for Veterans within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As a result, the VA has undergone a major transformation in the way that care is delivered to Veterans with an increased reliance on community-based provider networks. No studies have examined the relationship between VA and contracted community providers. This study examines VA facility directors' perspectives on their successes and challenges building relationships with community providers within the VA Community Care Network (CCN).

OBJECTIVES

To understand who VA facilities partner with for community care, highlight areas of greatest need for partnerships in various regions, and identify challenges of working with community providers in the new CCN contract.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We conducted a national survey with VA facility directors to explore needs, challenges, and expectations with the CCN.

RESULTS

The most common care referred to community providers included physical therapy, chiropractic, orthopedic, ophthalmology, and acupuncture. Open-ended responses focused on 3 topics: (1) Challenges in working with community providers, (2) Strategies to maintain strong relationships with community providers, and (3) Re-engagement with community providers who no longer provide care for Veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

VA faces challenges engaging with community providers given problems with timely reimbursement of community providers, low (Medicare) reimbursement rates, and confusing VA rules related to prior authorizations and bundled services. It will be critical to identify strategies to successfully initiate and sustain relationships with community providers.

VA Care Coordination Program Increased Primary Care Visits and Improved Transitional Care for Veterans Post Non-VA Hospital Discharge

Veterans are increasingly eligible for non-VA care through the Veteran Health Administration (VA) Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act while maintaining care in the VA. Continuity of care is challenging when delivered across multiple systems resulting in avoidable complications. The Community Hospital Transitions Program (CHTP) intervention was developed to address challenges veterans face post non-VA hospitalization. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes between 334 intervention and matched control patients who were discharged from non-VA hospitals. Veterans in CHTP were more likely than matched controls to receive a follow-up appointment within 14 days (mean: 0.43 vs 0.34, P < .05) and 30 days (mean: 0.62 vs 0.50, P < .05). There were no significant differences in 30-day readmissions or 30-day emergency department visits. CHTP veterans received timely follow-up care post discharge in VA facilities. Providing quality care to dual-use veterans is dependent on coordinated transitional care.