Impact of Primary Care Intensive Management on High-Risk Veterans' Costs and Utilization: A Randomized Quality Improvement Trial

Veterans' use of inpatient and outpatient palliative care: The national landscape

BACKGROUND

Palliative care improves the quality of life for people with life-limiting conditions, which are common among older adults. Despite the Veterans Health Administration (VA) outpatient palliative care expansion, most research has focused on inpatient palliative care. This study aimed to compare veteran characteristics and hospice use for palliative care users across care settings (inpatient vs. outpatient) and dose (number of palliative care encounters).

METHODS

This national cohort included veterans with any VA palliative care encounters from 2014 through 2017. We used VA and Medicare administrative data (2010-2017) to describe veteran demographics, socioeconomic status, life-limiting conditions, frailty, and palliative care utilization. Specialty palliative care encounters were identified using clinic stop codes (353, 351) and current procedural terminology codes (99241-99245).

RESULTS

Of 120,249 unique veterans with specialty palliative care over 4 years, 67.8% had palliative care only in the inpatient setting (n = 81,523) and 32.2% had at least one palliative care encounter in the outpatient setting (n = 38,726), with or without an inpatient palliative care encounter. Outpatient versus inpatient palliative care users were more likely to have cancer and less likely to have high frailty, but sociodemographic factors including rurality and housing instability were similar. Duration of hospice use was similar between inpatient (median = 37 days; IQR = 11, 112) and outpatient (median = 44 days; IQR = 14, 118) palliative care users, and shorter among those with only one palliative care encounter (median = 18 days; IQR = 5, 64).

CONCLUSIONS

This national evaluation provides novel insights into the care setting and dose of VA specialty palliative care for veterans. Among veterans with palliative care use, one-third received at least some palliative care in the outpatient care setting. Differences between veterans with inpatient and outpatient use motivate the need for further research to understand how care settings and number of palliative care encounters impact outcomes for veterans and older adults.

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.

Impact of Referring High-Risk Patients to Intensive Outpatient Primary Care Services: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Many healthcare systems have implemented intensive outpatient primary care programs with the hopes of reducing healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVE

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted primary care intensive management (PIM) for patients at high risk for hospitalization or death, or "high-risk." We evaluated whether a referral model would decrease high-risk patient costs.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using a quasi-experimental design comparing 456 high-risk patients referred to PIM from October 2017 to September 2018 to 415 high-risk patients matched on propensity score.

PARTICIPANTS

Veterans in the top 10th percentile of risk for 90-day hospitalization or death and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit.

INTERVENTION

PIM consisted of interdisciplinary teams that performed comprehensive assessments, intensive case management, and care coordination services.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Change in VHA and non-VHA outpatient utilization, inpatient admissions, and costs 12 months pre- and post-index date.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 456 patients referred to PIM, 301 (66%) enrolled. High-risk patients referred to PIM had a marginal reduction in ED visits (- 0.7; [95% CI - 1.50 to 0.08]; p = 0.08) compared to propensity-matched high-risk patients; overall outpatient costs were similar. High-risk patients referred to PIM had similar number of medical/surgical hospitalizations (- 0.2; [95% CI, - 0.6 to 0.16]; p = 0.2), significant increases in length of stay (6.36; [CI, - 0.01 to 12.72]; p = 0.05), and higher inpatient costs ($22,628, [CI, $3587 to $41,669]; p = 0.02) than those not referred to PIM.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

VHA intensive outpatient primary care was associated with higher costs. Referral to intensive case management programs targets the most complex patients and may lead to increased utilization and costs, particularly in an integrated healthcare setting with robust patient-centered medical homes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PIM 2.0: Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) Intensive Management (PIM) Project (PIM2). NCT04521816. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04521816.

Variation in benefit among patients with serious mental illness who receive integrated psychiatric and primary care

PURPOSE

The population with serious mental illness has high risk for hospitalization or death due to unhealthy behaviors and inadequate medical care, though the level of risk varies substantially. Programs that integrate medical and psychiatric services improve outcomes but are challenging to implement and access is limited. It would be useful to know whether benefits are confined to patients with specific levels of risk.

METHODS

In a population with serious mental illness and increased risk for hospitalization or death, a specialized medical home integrated services and improved treatment and outcomes. Treatment quality, chronic illness care, care experience, symptoms, and quality of life were assessed for a median of 385 days. Analyses examine whether improvements varied by baseline level of patient risk.

RESULTS

Patients with greater risk were more likely to be older, more cognitively impaired, and have worse mental health. Integrated services increased appropriate screening for body mass index, lipids, and glucose, but increases did not differ significantly by level of risk. Integrated services also improved chronic illness care, care experience, mental health-related quality of life, and psychotic symptoms. There were also no significant differences by risk level.

CONCLUSIONS

There were benefits from integration of primary care and psychiatric care at all levels of increased risk, including those with extremely high risk above the 95th percentile. When developing integrated care programs, patients should be considered at all levels of risk, not only those who are the healthiest.

Development and Validation of a Measure to Assess Patient Experiences With Video Care Encounters

Importance

As video-based care expands in many clinical settings, assessing patient experiences with this care modality will help optimize health care quality, safety, and communication.

Objective

To develop and assess the psychometric properties of the video visit user experience (VVUE) measure, a patient-reported measure of experiences with video-based technology.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this survey study, veterans completed a web-based, mail, or telephone survey about their use of Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) virtual care between September 2021 and January 2022. The survey was completed by patients who reported having a VHA video visit on their own device or a VHA-issued device and linked to VHA utilization data for the 6 months following the survey. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to February 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The survey included 19 items about experiences with video visits that were rated using a 4-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). First, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine the factor structure and parsimonious set of items, using the McDonald Omega test to assess internal consistency reliability. Then, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test structural validity, and bivariate correlations between VVUE and VHA health care engagement were calculated to test concurrent validity. Finally, predictive validity was assessed using logistic regression to determine whether VVUE was associated with future VHA video visit use.

Results

Among 1887 respondents included in the analyses, 83.2% (95% CI, 81.5%-84.8%) were male, 41.0% (95% CI, 38.8%-43.1%) were aged 65 years or older, and the majority had multiple chronic medical and mental health conditions. The exploratory factor analysis identified a 10-item single-factor VVUE measure (including questions about satisfaction, user-centeredness, technical quality, usefulness, and appropriateness), explaining 96% of the total variance, with acceptable internal consistency reliability (ω = 0.95). The confirmatory factor analysis results confirmed a single-factor solution (standardized root mean squared residual = 0.04). VVUE was positively associated with VHA health care engagement (ρ = 0.47; P < .001). Predictive validity models demonstrated that higher VVUE measure scores were associated with future use of video visits, where each 1-point increase on VVUE was associated with greater likelihood of having a video visit in subsequent 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study of veterans using video visits suggest that a brief measure is valid to capture veterans' experiences receiving VHA virtual care.

The Camden Coalition Care Management Program Improved Intermediate Care Coordination: A Randomized Controlled Trial

When a randomized evaluation finds null results, it is important to understand why. We investigated two very different explanations for the finding from a randomized evaluation that the Camden Coalition's influential care management program-which targeted high-use, high-need patients in Camden, New Jersey-did not reduce hospital readmissions. One explanation is that the program's underlying theory of change was not right, meaning that intensive care coordination may have been insufficient to change patient outcomes. Another explanation is a failure of implementation, suggesting that the program may have failed to achieve its goals but could have succeeded if it had been implemented with greater fidelity. To test these two explanations, we linked study participants to Medicaid data, which covered 561 (70 percent) of the original 800 participants, to examine the program's impact on facilitating postdischarge ambulatory care-a key element of care coordination. We found that the program increased ambulatory visits by 15 percentage points after fourteen days postdischarge, driven by an increase in primary care; these effects persisted through 365 days. These results suggest that care coordination alone may be insufficient to reduce readmissions for patients with high rates of hospital admissions and medically and socially complex conditions.

Frontline perspectives on adoption and non-adoption of care management tools for high-risk patients in primary care

BACKGROUND

Population health management tools (PHMTs) embedded within electronic health records (EHR) could improve management of high-risk patients and reduce costs associated with potentially avoidable emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Adoption of PHMTs across the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has been variable and previous research suggests that understaffed primary care (PC) teams might not be using the tools.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective content analysis of open-text responses (n = 1804) from the VA's 2018 national primary care personnel survey to, 1) identify system-level and individual-level factors associated with why clinicians are not using the tools, and 2) to document clinicians' recommendations to improve tool adoption.

RESULTS

We found three themes pertaining to low adoption and/or tool use: 1) IT burden and administrative tasks (e.g., manually mailing letters to patients), 2) staffing shortages (e.g., nurses covering multiple teams), and 3) no training or difficulty using the tools (e.g., not knowing how to access the tools or use the data). Frontline clinician recommendations included automating some tasks, reconfiguring team roles to shift administrative work away from providers and nurses, consolidating PHMTs into a centralized, easily accessible repository, and providing training.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare system-level factors (staffing) and individual-level factors (lack of training) can limit adoption of PHMTs that could be useful for reducing costs and improving patient outcomes. Future research, including qualitative interviews with clinicians who use/don't use the tools, could help develop interventions to address barriers to adoption.

IMPLICATIONS

Shifting more administrative tasks to clerical staff would free up clinician time for population health management but may not be possible for understaffed PC teams. Additionally, healthcare systems may be able to increase PHMT use by making them more easily accessible through the electronic health record and providing training in their use.

Ambulatory Intensive Care for Medically Complex Patients at a Health Care Clinic for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness: The SUMMIT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Intensive primary care interventions have been promoted to reduce hospitalization rates and improve health outcomes for medically complex patients, but evidence of their efficacy is limited.

Objective

To assess the efficacy of a multidisciplinary ambulatory intensive care unit (A-ICU) intervention on health care utilization and patient-reported outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Streamlined Unified Meaningfully Managed Interdisciplinary Team (SUMMIT) randomized clinical trial used a wait-list control design and was conducted at a health care clinic for patients experiencing homelessness in Portland, Oregon. The first patient was enrolled in August 2016, and the last patient was enrolled in November 2019. Included patients had 1 or more hospitalizations in the prior 6 months and 2 or more chronic medical conditions, substance use disorder, or mental illness. Data analysis was performed between March and May 2021.

Intervention

The A-ICU included a team manager, a pharmacist, a nurse, care coordinators, social workers, and physicians. Activities included comprehensive 90-minute intake, transitional care coordination, and flexible appointments, with reduced panel size. Enhanced usual care (EUC), consisting of team-based primary care with access to community health workers and mental health, addiction treatment, and pharmacy services, served as the comparator. Participants who received EUC joined the A-ICU intervention after 6 months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was the difference in rates of hospitalization (primary outcome), emergency department (ED) visits, and primary care physician (PCP) visits per person over 6 months (vs the prior 6 months). Patient-reported outcomes included changes in patient activation, experience, health-related quality of life, and self-rated health at 6 months (vs baseline). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis using a linear mixed-effects model with a random intercept for each patient to examine the association between study group and outcomes.

Results

This study randomized 159 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.9 [9.8] years) to the A-ICU SUMMIT intervention (n = 80) or to EUC (n = 79). The majority of participants were men (102 [65.8%]) and most were White (121 [76.1%]). A total of 64 participants (41.0%) reported having unstable housing at baseline. Six-month hospitalizations decreased in both the A-ICU and EUC groups, with no difference between them (mean [SE], -0.6 [0.5] vs -0.9 [0.5]; difference, 0.3 [95% CI, -1.0 to 1.5]). Emergency department use did not differ between groups (mean [SE], -2.0 [1.0] vs 0.9 [1.0] visits per person; difference, -1.1 [95% CI, -3.7 to 1.6]). Primary care physician visits increased in the A-ICU group (mean [SE], 4.2 [1.6] vs -2.0 [1.6] per person; difference, 6.1 [95% CI, 1.8 to 10.4]). Patients in the A-ICU group reported improved social functioning (mean [SE], 4.7 [2.0] vs -1.1 [2.0]; difference, 5.8 [95% CI, 0.3 to 11.2]) and self-rated health (mean [SE], 0.7 [0.3] vs -0.2 [0.3]; difference, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.1 to 1.8]) compared with patients in the EUC group. No differences in patient activation or experience were observed.

Conclusions and Relevance

The A-ICU intervention did not change hospital or ED utilization at 6 months but increased PCP visits and improved patient well-being. Longer-term studies are needed to evaluate whether these observed improvements lead to eventual changes in acute care utilization.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03224858.

Types of Engagement Strategies to Engage High-Risk Patients in VA

BACKGROUND

Many healthcare systems seek to improve care for complex high-risk patients, but engaging such patients to actively participate in their healthcare can be challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe types of patient engagement strategies reported as successfully deployed by providers/teams and experienced by patients in a Veterans Health Administration (VA) intensive primary care (IPC) pilot program.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 29 VA IPC staff (e.g., physicians, nurses, psychologists) and 51 patients who had at least four IPC team encounters. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach.

RESULTS

The engagement strategies successfully deployed by the IPC providers/teams could be considered either more "facilitative," i.e., facilitated by and dependent on staff actions, or more "self-sustaining," i.e., taught to patients, thus cultivating their ongoing patient self-care. Facilitative strategies revolved around enhancing patient access and coordination of care, trust-building, and addressing social determinants of health. Self-sustaining strategies were oriented around patient empowerment and education, caregiver and/or community support, and boundaries and responsibilities. When patients described their experiences with the "facilitative" strategies, many discussed positive proximal outcomes (e.g., increased access to healthcare providers). Self-sustaining strategies led to positive (self-reported) longer-term clinical outcomes, such as behavior change.

CONCLUSION

We identified two categories of strategies for successfully engaging complex, high-risk patients: facilitative and self-sustaining. Intensive primary care program leaders may consider thoughtfully building "self-sustaining" engagement strategies into program development. Future research can confirm their effectiveness in improving health outcomes.

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.

Intensive care management for high-risk veterans in a patient-centered medical home - do some veterans benefit more than others?

BACKGROUND

Primary care intensive management programs utilize interdisciplinary care teams to comprehensively meet the complex care needs of patients at high risk for hospitalization. The mixed evidence on the effectiveness of these programs focuses on average treatment effects that may mask heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) among subgroups of patients. We test for HTEs by patients' demographic, economic, and social characteristics.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a VA randomized quality improvement trial. 3995 primary care patients at high risk for hospitalization were randomized to primary care intensive management (n = 1761) or usual primary care (n = 1731). We estimated HTEs on ED and hospital utilization one year after randomization using model-based recursive partitioning and a pre-versus post-with control group framework. Splitting variables included administratively collected demographic characteristics, travel distance, copay exemption, risk score for future hospitalizations, history of hospital discharge against medical advice, homelessness, and multiple residence ZIP codes.

RESULTS

There were no average or heterogeneous treatment effects of intensive management one year after enrollment. The recursive partitioning algorithm identified variation in effects by risk score, homelessness, and whether the patient had multiple residences in a year. Within each distinct subgroup, the effect of intensive management was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care intensive management did not affect acute care use of high-risk patients on average or differentially for patients defined by various demographic, economic, and social characteristics.

IMPLICATIONS

Reducing acute care use for high-risk patients is complex, and more work is required to identify patients positioned to benefit from intensive management programs.

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).

Trends in Health Service Utilization After Enrollment in an Interdisciplinary Primary Care Clinic for Veterans with Addiction, Social Determinants of Health, or Other Vulnerabilities

BACKGROUND

Models of interdisciplinary primary care (IPC) may improve upon traditional primary care approaches in addressing addiction and social determinants of health.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the trends in health care utilization in the year before and after enrollment in an IPC clinic model, and explore the variations in temporal patterns for patients with histories of high emergency department (ED) use, homelessness, and/or substance use disorders (SUDs).

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Interrupted time series study of utilization among IPC patients.

MAIN MEASURES

Quarterly ED, inpatient, primary care, and behavioral health visits were abstracted from administrative data before and after IPC enrollment. Negative binomial segmented regressions estimated changes in health care utilization over time. We used interactions to test for statistical differences in temporal patterns for IPC subgroups.

RESULTS

Among IPC patients (n=994), enrollment was associated with overall reductions in ED, inpatient, and behavioral health visits (p's<0.001) and increases in primary care (p's<0.001). Temporal patterns of ED visits, hospitalizations, and behavioral health differed across IPC subgroups (interaction p's<0.001). For those with histories of high ED use (n=265), ED, inpatient, and behavioral health visits decreased after enrollment (level change incidence rate ratios [IRRs]=0.57-0.69) and continued to decline over time (post-enrollment IRRs=0.80-0.88). Among other patients with homeless experiences (n=123), there were initial declines in hospitalizations (IRR=0.33) and overall declines in behavioral health visits (level change and post-enrollment IRRs=0.46-0.94). Other patients with SUDs had initial declines in hospitalizations (IRR=0.46), and post-enrollment declines in rates of specialty SUD visits (IRR=0.92). For all patients, primary care visits initially increased (level change IIRs=2.47-1.34) then gradually declined (post-enrollment IRRs=0.92-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

An IPC model of care reduces acute care and behavioral health service use, particularly for patients with historically high ED use. IPC models may improve patient and system outcomes of vulnerable patient populations with social, clinical, and addiction morbidities.

Nursing Home-Sensitive Hospitalizations and the Relevance of Telemedicine: A Scoping Review

The aging of society is increasing the number of hospitalizations of nursing home residents. Telemedicine might help reduce the frequency of these potentially risk-associated hospitalizations. This scoping review looked for evidence of a change in the rate of hospitalization and, if mentioned, any cost savings and/or staff acceptance of the use of telemedicine in a nursing home setting. To identify available evidence, the electronic databases PubMed, Livivo, EBSCO and JSTOR were searched (without time or regional constraints) for comparative primary research studies on this topic in peer-reviewed journals. A total of 1127 articles were retrieved and 923 titles and abstracts were screened, with 16 studies published between 2001 and 2022 being included. Telemedicine consultation reduced the hospitalization of nursing home residents in 14/16 and care costs in 8/11 articles. Staff satisfaction was mentioned positively in five studies. Most studies used telemedicine involving medical diagnostic technologies (10), (electronic) health records (9), specialists (9) and specialized nursing staff (11). Few studies had a higher level of evidence: only one randomized clinical trial was included. There is the need for high credibility studies, using guidelines on protocol and reporting, to better understand the hindering and facilitating factors of telemedicine provision in the healthcare of nursing home residents.

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.

Clinical Outcome and Utilization Profiles Among Latent Groups of High-Risk Patients: Moving from Segmentation Towards Intervention

BACKGROUND

The ability of latent class models to identify clinically distinct groups among high-risk patients has been demonstrated, but it is unclear how healthcare data can inform group-specific intervention design.

OBJECTIVE

Examine how utilization patterns across latent groups of high-risk patients provide actionable information to guide group-specific intervention design.

DESIGN

Cohort study using data from 2012 to 2015.

PATIENTS

Participants were 934,787 patients receiving primary care in the Veterans Health Administration, with predicted probability of 12-month hospitalization in the top 10^th percentile during 2014.

MAIN MEASURES

Patients were assigned to latent groups via mixture-item response theory models based on 28 chronic conditions. We modeled odds of all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, and 30-day re-hospitalizations by group membership. Detailed outpatient and inpatient utilization patterns were compared between groups.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 764,257 (81.8%) of patients were matched with a comorbidity group. Groups were characterized by substance use disorders (14.0% of patients assigned), cardiometabolic conditions (25.7%), mental health conditions (17.6%), pain/arthritis (19.1%), cancer (15.3%), and liver disease (8.3%). One-year mortality ranged from 2.7% in the Mental Health group to 14.9% in the Cancer group, compared to 8.5% overall. In adjusted models, group assignment predicted significantly different odds of each outcome. Groups differed in their utilization of multiple types of care. For example, patients in the Pain group had the highest utilization of in-person primary care, with a mean (SD) of 5.3 (5.0) visits in the year of follow-up, while the Substance Use Disorder group had the lowest, with 3.9 (4.1) visits. The Substance Use Disorder group also had the highest rates of using services for housing instability (25.1%), followed by the Liver group (10.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Latent groups of high-risk patients had distinct hospitalization and utilization profiles, despite having comparable levels of predicted baseline risk. Utilization profiles pointed towards system-specific care needs that could inform tailored interventions.

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.

Care Coordination Models and Tools-Systematic Review and Key Informant Interviews

BACKGROUND

Care coordination (CC) interventions involve systematic strategies to address fragmentation and enhance continuity of care. However, it remains unclear whether CC can sufficiently address patient needs and improve outcomes.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center, and VA Evidence Synthesis Program, from inception to September 2019. Two individuals reviewed eligibility and rated quality using modified AMSTAR 2. Eligible systematic reviews (SR) examined diverse CC interventions for community-dwelling adults with ambulatory care sensitive conditions and/or at higher risk for acute care. From eligible SR and relevant included primary studies, we abstracted the following: study and intervention characteristics; target population(s); effects on hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and/or patient experience; setting characteristics; and tools and approaches used. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals who implemented CC interventions.

RESULTS

Of 2324 unique citations, 16 SR were eligible; 14 examined case management or transitional care interventions; and 2 evaluated intensive primary care models. Two SR highlighted selection for specific risk factors as important for effectiveness; one of these also indicated high intensity (e.g., more patient contacts) and/or multidisciplinary plans were key. Most SR found inconsistent effects on reducing hospitalizations or ED visits; few reported on patient experience. Effective interventions were implemented in multiple settings, including rural community hospitals, academic medical centers (in urban settings), and public hospitals serving largely poor, uninsured populations. Primary studies reported variable approaches to improve patient-provider communication, including health coaching and role-playing. SR, primary studies, and key informant interviews did not identify tools for measuring patient trust or care team integration. Sustainability of CC interventions varied and some were adapted over time.

DISCUSSION

CC interventions have inconsistent effects on reducing hospitalizations and ED visits. Future work should address how they should be adapted to different healthcare settings and which tools or approaches are most helpful for implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO #CRD42020156359.

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.

Integrated disease management interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show considerable variation in symptoms, limitations, and well-being; this often complicates medical care. A multi-disciplinary and multi-component programme that addresses different elements of care could improve quality of life (QoL) and exercise tolerance, while reducing the number of exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of integrated disease management (IDM) programmes versus usual care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in terms of health-related quality of life (QoL), exercise tolerance, and exacerbation-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for potentially eligible studies. Searches were current as of September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IDM programmes for COPD versus usual care were included. Interventions consisted of multi-disciplinary (two or more healthcare providers) and multi-treatment (two or more components) IDM programmes of at least three months' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. If required, we contacted study authors to request additional data. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects modelling. We carried out sensitivity analyses for the quality of included studies and performed subgroup analyses based on setting, study design, dominant intervention components, and region.

MAIN RESULTS

Along with 26 studies included in the 2013 Cochrane Review, we added 26 studies for this update, resulting in 52 studies involving 21,086 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Follow-up periods ranged between 3 and 48 months and were classified as short-term (up to 6 months), medium-term (6 to 15 months), and long-term (longer than 15 months) follow-up. Studies were conducted in 19 different countries. The mean age of included participants was 67 years, and 66% were male. Participants were treated in all types of healthcare settings, including primary (n =15), secondary (n = 22), and tertiary care (n = 5), and combined primary and secondary care (n = 10). Overall, the level of certainty of evidence was moderate to high. We found that IDM probably improves health-related QoL as measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at medium-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.16 to -1.63; 18 RCTs, 4321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A comparable effect was observed at short-term follow-up (MD -3.78, 95% CI -6.29 to -1.28; 16 RCTs, 1788 participants). However, the common effect did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of 4 points. There was no significant difference between IDM and control for long-term follow-up and for generic QoL. IDM probably also leads to a large improvement in maximum and functional exercise capacity, as measured by six-minute walking distance (6MWD), at medium-term follow-up (MD 44.69, 95% CI 24.01 to 65.37; 13 studies, 2071 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect exceeded the MCID of 35 metres and was even greater at short-term (MD 52.26, 95% CI 32.39 to 72.74; 17 RCTs, 1390 participants) and long-term (MD 48.83, 95% CI 16.37 to 80.49; 6 RCTs, 7288 participants) follow-up. The number of participants with respiratory-related admissions was reduced from 324 per 1000 participants in the control group to 235 per 1000 participants in the IDM group (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.81; 15 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 4207 participants; high-certainty evidence). Likewise, IDM probably results in a reduction in emergency department (ED) visits (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.93; 9 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 8791 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), a slight reduction in all-cause hospital admissions (OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.98; 10 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 9030 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital days per person admitted (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.56; 14 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 3563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Statistically significant improvement was noted on the Medical Research Council (MRC) Dyspnoea Scale at short- and medium-term follow-up but not at long-term follow-up. No differences between groups were reported for mortality, courses of antibiotics/prednisolone, dyspnoea, and depression and anxiety scores. Subgroup analysis of dominant intervention components and regions of study suggested context- and intervention-specific effects. However, some subgroup analyses were marked by considerable heterogeneity or included few studies. These results should therefore be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that IDM probably results in improvement in disease-specific QoL, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and hospital days per person. Future research should evaluate which combination of IDM components and which intervention duration are most effective for IDM programmes, and should consider contextual determinants of implementation and treatment effect, including process-related outcomes, long-term follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses.

Health, social care and technological interventions to improve functional ability of older adults living at home: An evidence and gap map

Background

By 2030, the global population of people older than 60 years is expected to be higher than the number of children under 10 years, resulting in major health and social care system implications worldwide. Without a supportive environment, whether social or built, diminished functional ability may arise in older people. Functional ability comprises an individual's intrinsic capacity and people's interaction with their environment enabling them to be and do what they value.

Objectives

This evidence and gap map aims to identify primary studies and systematic reviews of health and social support services as well as assistive devices designed to support functional ability among older adults living at home or in other places of residence.

Search Methods

We systematically searched from inception to August 2018 in: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AgeLine, Campbell Library, ASSIA, Social Science Citation Index and Social Policy & Practice. We conducted a focused search for grey literature and protocols of studies (e.g., ProQuest Theses and Dissertation Global, conference abstract databases, Help Age, PROSPERO, Cochrane and Campbell libraries and ClinicalTrials.gov).

Selection Criteria

Screening and data extraction were performed independently in duplicate according to our intervention and outcome framework. We included completed and on-going systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of effectiveness on health and social support services provided at home, assistive products and technology for personal indoor and outdoor mobility and transportation as well as design, construction and building products and technology of buildings for private use such as wheelchairs, and ramps.

Data Collection and Analysis

We coded interventions and outcomes, and the number of studies that assessed health inequities across equity factors. We mapped outcomes based on the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) adapted categories: intrinsic capacities (body function and structures) and functional abilities (activities). We assessed methodological quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR II checklist.

Main Results

After de-duplication, 10,783 records were screened. The map includes 548 studies (120 systematic reviews and 428 randomized controlled trials). Interventions and outcomes were classified using domains from the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Most systematic reviews (n = 71, 59%) were rated low or critically low for methodological quality.The most common interventions were home-based rehabilitation for older adults (n = 276) and home-based health services for disease prevention (n = 233), mostly delivered by visiting healthcare professionals (n = 474). There was a relative paucity of studies on personal mobility, building adaptations, family support, personal support and befriending or friendly visits. The most measured intrinsic capacity domains were mental function (n = 269) and neuromusculoskeletal function (n = 164). The most measured outcomes for functional ability were basic needs (n = 277) and mobility (n = 160). There were few studies which evaluated outcome domains of social participation, financial security, ability to maintain relationships and communication.There was a lack of studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and a gap in the assessment of health equity issues.

Authors' Conclusions

There is substantial evidence for interventions to promote functional ability in older adults at home including mostly home-based rehabilitation for older adults and home-based health services for disease prevention. Remotely delivered home-based services are of greater importance to policy-makers and practitioners in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This map of studies published prior to the pandemic provides an initial resource to identify relevant home-based services which may be of interest for policy-makers and practitioners, such as home-based rehabilitation and social support, although these interventions would likely require further adaptation for online delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a need to strengthen assessment of social support and mobility interventions and outcomes related to making decisions, building relationships, financial security, and communication in future studies. More studies are needed to assess LMIC contexts and health equity issues.

Subgroups of High-Risk Veterans Affairs Patients Based on Social Determinants of Health Predict Risk of Future Hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

Population segmentation has been recognized as a foundational step to help tailor interventions. Prior studies have predominantly identified subgroups based on diagnoses. In this study, we identify clinically coherent subgroups using social determinants of health (SDH) measures collected from Veterans at high risk of hospitalization or death.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

SDH measures were obtained for 4684 Veterans at high risk of hospitalization through mail survey. Eleven self-report measures known to impact hospitalization and amenable to intervention were chosen a priori by the study team to identify subgroups through latent class analysis. Associations between subgroups and demographic and comorbidity characteristics were calculated through multinomial logistic regression. Odds of 180-day hospitalization were compared across subgroups through logistic regression.

RESULTS

Five subgroups of high-risk patients emerged-those with: minimal SDH vulnerabilities (8% hospitalized), poor/fair health with few SDH vulnerabilities (12% hospitalized), social isolation (10% hospitalized), multiple SDH vulnerabilities (12% hospitalized), and multiple SDH vulnerabilities without food or medication insecurity (10% hospitalized). In logistic regression, the "multiple SDH vulnerabilities" subgroup had greater odds of 180-day hospitalization than did the "minimal SDH vulnerabilities" reference subgroup (odds ratio: 1.53, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-2.14).

CONCLUSION

Self-reported SDH measures can identify meaningful subgroups that may be used to offer tailored interventions to reduce their risk of hospitalization and other adverse events.

Delivering Complex Care: Designing for Patients and Physicians

The management of high-utilizing patients is an area of active research with broad implications for the healthcare system. There are significant operational challenges to designing primary care models for these medically complex, high-needs patients. Although it is crucial to provide a high degree of continuity of care for this population, managing a cohort of these patients can lead to provider over-work and attrition. This may be magnified by the lack of training dedicated to addressing the unique care needs of these patients. While academic medical centers would seem well suited to care for individuals with multimorbidity needing intensive and specialized treatment, primary care providers in this setting need additional support to be clinically available for patients while pursuing scholarship and teaching. Formally recognizing intensive outpatient care as a specialty within internal medicine would help overcome some of these challenges. This would require a committed effort to high-level systems changes including a new focus on graduate medical education, the creation of division-level infrastructure within academic departments of medicine, and realistic levels of financial support to make this a viable career path.

Can Using an Intensive Management Program Improve Primary Care Staff Experiences With Caring for High-Risk Patients?

BACKGROUND

Complex, high-risk patients present challenges for primary care staff. Intensive outpatient management teams aim to serve as a resource for usual primary care to improve care for high-risk patients without adding burden to the primary care staff. Whether such assistance can influence the primary care staff experiences is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine improvement in job satisfaction and intent to stay for primary care staff at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who sought assistance from an intensive management program.

METHODS

Longitudinal analysis of a staff cohort that completed 2 cross-sectional surveys 18 months apart, controlling for outcomes at time 1. Participants included 144 primary care providers at 5 geographically diverse VA health care systems who completed both surveys. Measured outcomes included job satisfaction and intent to stay within primary care at the VA (measured at time 2). Predictors included likelihood of using intensive management teams (measured at time 1). Covariates included outcomes and professional/practice characteristics (measured at time 1).

RESULTS

The response rate for primary care staff that completed both surveys was 21%. Staff who indicated at time 1 that they were more likely to use intensive management teams for high-risk patients reported significantly higher satisfaction and intention to stay at VA primary care at time 2 (both P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A VA primary care workforce might benefit from assistance from intensive management teams for high-risk patients. Additional work is needed to understand the mechanisms by which primary care staff benefit and how to optimize them.

Association of the Patient-Centered Medical Home Implementation with Chronic Disease Quality in Patients with Multimorbidity

BACKGROUND

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) was established in part to improve chronic disease management, yet evidence is limited for effects on patients with multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) implementation, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) PCMH model, and care quality for multimorbid patients enrolled in VA primary care from 2012 to 2014.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

PATIENTS

318,764 multimorbid (> 3 chronic diseases) patients receiving care in 917 clinics.

MAIN MEASURES

PCMH implementation was measured using the PACT Implementation Progress Index (PI²) for clinics in 2012. The PI² is a validated composite measure of administrative and survey data with higher scores associated with greater care quality. Quality outcomes from 2013 to 2014 were assessed from External Peer Review Program (EPRP) metrics. Outcomes included preventative care, chronic disease management, and mental health and substance use metrics. We used generalized estimating equations to model associations adjusting for patient and clinic characteristics. We also examined associations for a subgroup with > 5 chronic diseases.

KEY RESULTS

For one-third of metrics (5/15), greater implementation of PACT in 2012 was associated with higher predicted probability of meeting the quality metric in 2013-2014. This association persisted for only two metrics (diabetic glycemic control, P < 0.001; lipid control in ischemic heart disease, P = 0.02) among patients with > 5 chronic diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimorbid patients engaged in care from clinics with higher PCMH implementation received higher quality care across several quality domains, but this association was reduced in patients with > 5 chronic diseases.

Identifying Populations with Complex Needs: Variation in Approaches Used to Select Complex Patient Populations

Interventions to support patients with complex needs are proliferating. However, little attention has been paid to methods for identifying complex patients. This study aims to summarize approaches used to define populations with complex needs in practice, by cataloging specific population criteria and organizing them into a taxonomy. The authors conducted a pragmatic review of literature published January 2000-December 2018 using PubMed. Search results were limited to English-language studies of adults that specified a set of objective criteria to identify a population with complex needs. The authors abstracted data from each article on population parameters, and conducted thematic analysis guided by deductive coding. The review identified 70 studies reflecting 90 unique complex population definitions. Complex populations criteria reflected 3 approaches: stratification, segmentation, and targeting. Six domains of population criteria were found within, including age-based criteria (59 populations); income (12); health care costs (45); health care utilization (39); health conditions (35); and subjective criteria (15). Criteria from multiple domains were frequently used in combination, and exact specifications were highly variable within each domain. Overall, 83% of the 90 population definitions included at least 1 cost- or utilization-based criterion. Nearly every study in the review presented a unique approach to identifying patients with complex needs but a limited number of "schools of thought" were found. Variability in definitions and inconsistent terminology are potential sources of ambiguity between stakeholders. Greater specificity and transparency in complex population definition would be a substantial contribution to the emerging field of complex care.

A National Pre-Pandemic Survey of Patient-Reported Health Confidence and Implications for Post-Pandemic Practice

Patient-reported health confidence is a valuable indicator of effective patient-clinician communication, which improves outcomes and reduces costly care use. This national survey examines health confidence attainment in the United States before the COVID pandemic strained health care resources. Health confidence was low for both the percentage of respondents who were financially secure (36%) and financially insecure (18%). Persons enrolled in employer- and union-sponsored plans, who had the highest household income, did not report higher levels of health confidence. Health policy should support the measurement and monitoring of health confidence in clinical practice to improve population health and maximize resource efficiency.

Implementation of a Protocol to Manage Patients at Risk for Hospitalization Due to an Ambulatory Care Sensitive Condition

Background

Ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs), such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, congestive heart failure, urinary tract infections, asthma, dehydration, bacterial pneumonia, angina without an in-hospital procedure, and perforated appendix put patients at risk for hospitalization. Currently at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin, no standardized process or protocol exists that can identify and optimize primary care for patients with ACSCs who have been hospitalized but are predicted to be at low risk for rehospitalization.

Methods

This project aimed to evaluate the implementation of offering further referrals and care for these patients. A pharmacy resident conducted a baseline chart review using a standardized template in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Patient Record System to identify additional referrals or interventions a patient may benefit from based on any identified ACSC. Potential referral options included a clinical pharmacy specialist or nurse care manager disease management, whole health/wellness, educational classes, home monitoring equipment, specialty clinics, nutrition, cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation, social work, and mental health.

Results

Comparing the 3 months prior to and the 3 months after offering referrals, there was a cumulative quantitative decrease in the number of emergency department visits (5 to 1) and hospitalizations (11 to 5).

Conclusions

Identifying patients at risk for hospitalization from an ACSC via a review and referral process by using the VA patient aligned care team structure was feasible and led to increased patient access to primary care and additional services.

Use of General Primary Care, Specialized Primary Care, and Other Veterans Affairs Services Among High-Risk Veterans

IMPORTANCE

Integrated health care systems increasingly focus on improving outcomes among patients at high risk for hospitalization. Examining patterns of where patients obtain care could give health care systems insight into how to develop approaches for high-risk patient care; however, such information is rarely described.

OBJECTIVE

To assess use of general and specialized primary care, medical specialty, and mental health services among patients at high risk of hospitalization in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This national, population-based, retrospective cross-sectional study included all veterans enrolled in any type of VHA primary care service as of September 30, 2015. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2016, to January 1, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Risk of hospitalization and assignment to general vs specialized primary care.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

High-risk veterans were defined as those who had the 5% highest risk of near-term hospitalization based on a validated risk prediction model; all others were considered low risk. Health care service use was measured by the number of encounters in general primary care, specialized primary care, medical specialty, mental health, emergency department, and add-on intensive management services (eg, telehealth and palliative care).

RESULTS

The study assessed 4 309 192 veterans (mean [SD] age, 62.6 [16.0] years; 93% male). Male veterans (93%; odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10-1.13), unmarried veterans (63%; OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 2.32-2.35), those older than 45 years (94%; 45-65 years of age: OR, 3.49 [95% CI, 3.44-3.54]; 66-75 years of age: OR, 3.04 [95% CI, 3.00-3.09]; and >75 years of age: OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 2.38-2.46]), black veterans (23%; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.61-1.64), and those with medical comorbidities (asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: 33%; OR, 4.03 [95% CI, 4.00-4.06]; schizophrenia: 4%; OR, 5.14 [95% CI, 5.05-5.22]; depression: 42%; OR, 3.10 [95% CI, 3.08-3.13]; and alcohol abuse: 20%; OR, 4.54 [95% CI, 4.50-4.59]) were more likely to be high risk (n = 351 012). Most (308 433 [88%]) high-risk veterans were assigned to general primary care; the remaining 12% (42 579 of 363 561) were assigned to specialized primary care (eg, women's health and homelessness). High-risk patients assigned to general primary care had more frequent primary care visits (mean [SD], 6.9 [6.5] per year) than those assigned to specialized primary care (mean [SD], 6.3 [7.3] per year; P < .001). They also had more medical specialty care visits (mean [SD], 4.4 [5.9] vs 3.7 [5.4] per year; P < .001) and fewer mental health visits (mean [SD], 9.0 [21.6] vs 11.3 [23.9] per year; P < .001). Use of intensive supplementary outpatient services was low overall.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that, in integrated health care systems, approaches to support high-risk patient care should be embedded within general primary care and mental health care if they are to improve outcomes for high-risk patient populations.

Facilitating ethical quality improvement initiatives: Design and implementation of an initiative-specific ethics committee

Like all facets of healthcare practice, quality improvement (QI) should be conducted in an ethically responsible manner. For methodologically complex QI, accountability and thoughtful ethical monitoring might be particularly important. Yet, access to ethical guidance for QI, as opposed to research, is often limited. Available mechanisms tend to be ill-equipped to accommodate the rapid cycle nature of QI, and monitoring standards for QI are not well defined. Providing appropriate ethical guidance for complex, multi-site QI initiatives can be especially challenging, as the body providing guidance must be familiar with QI methods, recognize the competing interests of stakeholder groups, respond to numerous requests, and understand the initiative's design. This case report describes our solution-an initiative-specific QI Ethics Committee that provided ethical guidance and consultation to a Veterans Administration QI initiative employing local innovations and a centralized evaluation. Enhanced by multiple tables, we discuss structuring and staffing the committee, the committee's role, functions and activities, requests for ethics guidance, and our strategy applying initiative-specific ethical principles to guide recommendations. Supported by feedback obtained from stakeholder interviews, we share key insights regarding the value of: • Clarifying and marketing the committee's role to users. • Reconciling conflicting interests between site-based team members and cross-site evaluators. • Separating ethics guidance from regulatory oversight. • Addressing the ethics of evaluative design. • Adjusting the intensity of the committee's work over time. • Creating tangible products. Our approach shows promise in supporting the ethical practice of methodologically complex QI, especially in institutions that lack applicable ethics monitoring mechanisms. Building on this approach, other complex QI initiatives can develop effective and feasible methods to protect participants from unintentional ethical lapses.

Development and Implementation of an Interdisciplinary Intensive Primary Care Clinic for High-Need High-Cost Patients in a Safety Net Hospital

In 2010, payment for some of Hennepin County Medical Center's highest need patients changed from fee for service to a per capita formula. This financial stress led the institution to employ a population health lens that revealed a significant concentration of spending on a small segment of the population. Finding high rates of potentially avoidable inpatient and emergency care, an organizational effort was initiated to attempt to manage this high-need, high-cost population more effectively. A freestanding interdisciplinary intensive primary care clinic was developed. Nurses led a risk stratification process to identify eligible patients for co-located medical, care coordination, and social services from multidisciplinary care teams. Workflows to engage the population were designed to reduce readmissions and inappropriate use of emergency services. Soon after opening, the clinic added mental health and substance use professionals. For people entering the clinic between January 2010 and July 2017, utilization and financial data were collected for the year before (pre) and after (post) enrollment (n = 487). Bivariate statistics and outlier analyses facilitated comparisons between pre/post enrollment. Patients visited the new clinic twice per month on average and outpatient costs almost doubled. Overall costs were 16% lower, with the largest decrease seen in inpatient costs. This experience has led to ongoing investment, replication, and expansion of the model. An interdisciplinary intensive primary care clinic for high-utilizing, underserved patients is a promising intervention. Multidisciplinary teams and ongoing institutional support are critical to program success. Payment reform is essential to the development of such programs.

"It's Like Riding Out the Chaos": Caring for Socially Complex Patients in an Ambulatory Intensive Care Unit (A-ICU)

PURPOSE

High-need high-cost (HNHC) patients consume a large proportion of health resources but often receive suboptimal care in traditional primary care. Intensive ambulatory care interventions attempt to better meet these patients' needs, but we know little about how teams delivering these interventions in clinics serving socially complex patient populations perceive their work.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative study of multidisciplinary staff experiences at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) caring for predominantly homeless HNHC patients in the context of an ongoing implementation of an ambulatory intensive care unit (A-ICU) intervention. We conducted semistructured interviews with 9 ambulatory intensive care team members and 6 "usual care" members. We conducted a thematic analysis, using an inductive approach, at a semantic level.

RESULTS

Staff viewed complexity as a combination of social, behavioral, and medical challenges that lead to patient-health care system mismatch. Staff perceive the following as key ingredients in caring for HNHC patients: addressing both psychosocial and clinical needs together; persistence in staying connected to patients through chaotic periods; shared commitment and cohesion among interdisciplinary team members; and flexibility to tailor care to patients' individual situations. Participants' definitions of success focused more on improving patient engagement than reducing utilization or cost.

CONCLUSION

FQHC staff working with HNHC patients perceive mismatch between the health care system and patients' clinical and social needs as the key driver of poor outcomes for these patients. Intensive ambulatory care teams may bridge mismatch through provision of psychosocial supports, flexible care delivery, and fostering team cohesion to support patient engagement.

Effective Models Urgently Needed to Improve Physical Care for People With Serious Mental Illnesses

People with serious mental illness have substantially worse health outcomes than people without mental illness. These patients use primary care less often and fail to receive needed preventive and chronic care. While a variety of care models have been implemented with the goal of improving care for these patients, few have been found to be effective. Young et al describes a specialty patient-centered medical home for patients with serious mental illness. In this model, the primary care provider manages the medical and mental health conditions of patients with stable psychiatric symptoms with assistance from a registered nurse and a consulting psychiatrist. The goal of this integrated model is to engage patients in preventive care by building a relationship with them in primary care and understanding both their medical and psychiatric needs. While this model may improve care and increase patient satisfaction, implementing this type of model may be challenging.

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

BACKGROUND

Intensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home.

OBJECTIVE

Determine how augmenting the VA's medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study.

PARTICIPANTS

Two thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care.

INTERVENTION

PIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff.

MAIN MEASURES

Patient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction.

KEY RESULTS

Seven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACT patients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACT patients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Augmenting VA's patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients' experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures.

Identifying Latent Subgroups of High-Risk Patients Using Risk Score Trajectories

OBJECTIVE

Many healthcare systems employ population-based risk scores to prospectively identify patients at high risk of poor outcomes, but it is unclear whether single point-in-time scores adequately represent future risk. We sought to identify and characterize latent subgroups of high-risk patients based on risk score trajectories.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study of 7289 patients discharged from Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals during a 1-week period in November 2012 and categorized in the top 5th percentile of risk for hospitalization.

METHODS

Using VA administrative data, we calculated weekly risk scores using the validated Care Assessment Needs model, reflecting the predicted probability of hospitalization. We applied the non-parametric k-means algorithm to identify latent subgroups of patients based on the trajectory of patients' hospitalization probability over a 2-year period. We then compared baseline sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, health service use, and social instability markers between identified latent subgroups.

RESULTS

The best-fitting model identified two subgroups: moderately high and persistently high risk. The moderately high subgroup included 65% of patients and was characterized by moderate subgroup-level hospitalization probability decreasing from 0.22 to 0.10 between weeks 1 and 66, then remaining constant through the study end. The persistently high subgroup, comprising the remaining 35% of patients, had a subgroup-level probability increasing from 0.38 to 0.41 between weeks 1 and 52, and declining to 0.30 at study end. Persistently high-risk patients were older, had higher prevalence of social instability and comorbidities, and used more health services.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, one third of patients initially identified as high risk stayed at very high risk over a 2-year follow-up period, while risk for the other two thirds decreased to a moderately high level. This suggests that multiple approaches may be needed to address high-risk patient needs longitudinally or intermittently.