Geriatric Patient-Aligned Care Teams in Department of Veterans Affairs: How Are They Structured?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sullivan JL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6196730 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn 2012, select Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities implemented a homeless-tailored medical home model, called Homeless Patient Aligned Care Teams (H-PACT), to improve care processes and outcomes for homeless Veterans.ObjectiveThe main aim of this study was to determine whether H-PACT offers a better patient experience than standard VHA primary care.Research designWe used multivariable logistic regressions to estimate differences in the probability of reporting positive primary care experiences on a national survey.SubjectsHomeless-experienced survey respondents enrolled in H-PACT (n=251) or standard primary care in facilities with H-PACT available (n=1527) and facilities without H-PACT (n=10,079).MeasuresPatient experiences in 8 domains from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Provider and Systems surveys. Domain scores were categorized as positive versus nonpositive.ResultsH-PACT patients were less likely than standard primary care patients to be female, have 4-year college degrees, or to have served in recent military conflicts; they received more primary care visits and social services. H-PACT patients were more likely than standard primary care patients in the same facilities to report positive experiences with access [adjusted risk difference (RD)=17.4], communication (RD=13.9), office staff (RD=13.1), provider ratings (RD=11.0), and comprehensiveness (RD=9.3). Standard primary care patients in facilities with H-PACT available were more likely than those from facilities without H-PACT to report positive experiences with communication (RD=4.7) and self-management support (RD=4.6).ConclusionsPatient-centered medical homes designed to address the social determinants of health offer a better care experience for homeless patients, when compared with standard primary care approaches. The lessons learned from H-PACT can be applied throughout VHA and to other health care settings.
| S-EPMC7773035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Veterans Choice Act of 2014 increased the number of Veterans eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-purchased care delivered in non-VA community care (CC) facilities. Driving >40 miles from home to a VA facility is a key eligibility criterion for CC. It remains unclear whether this policy change improved geographical access by reducing drive distance for Veterans.ObjectivesDescribe the driving distance for Veterans receiving cataract surgery in VA and CC facilities, and if they visited the closest-to-home facility or if they drove to farther facilities.SubjectsVeterans who had cataract surgery in federal fiscal year 2015.MeasuresWe calculated driving miles to the Closest VA and CC facilities that performed cataract surgeries, and to the location where Veterans received care.ResultsA total of 61,746 Veterans received 83,875 cataract surgeries. More than 50% of CC surgeries occurred farther than the Closest CC facility providing cataract surgery (median Closest CC facility 8.7 miles vs. Actual CC facility, 19.7 miles). Most (57%) Veterans receiving cataract surgery at a VA facility used the Closest VA facility (median Closest VA facility 28.1 miles vs. Actual VA facility at 31.2 miles). In all, 26.1% of CC procedures occurred in facilities farther away than the Closest VA facility.ConclusionsAlthough many Veterans drove farther than needed to get cataract surgery in CC, this was not true for obtaining care in the VA. Our findings suggest that there may be additional reasons, besides driving distance, that affect whether Veterans choose CC and, if they do, where they seek CC.
| S-EPMC8132907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ethnic minority patients receive lower priority triage assignments in Veteran's Affairs (VA) emergency departments (EDs) compared to White patients, but it is currently unknown whether this disparity arises from generalized biases across the triage assessment process or from differences in how objective and/or subjective institution-level or person-level information is incorporated into the triage assessment process, thus contributing to disparate treatment.The VA database of electronic medical records of patients who presented to the VA ED from 2008 to 2012 was used to measure patient ethnicity, self-reported pain intensity (PI) levels, heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), and nurse-provided triage assignment, the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) score. Multilevel, random effects linear modeling was used to control for demographic and clinical characteristics of patients as well as age, gender, and experience of triage nurses.A total of 359,642?patient/provider encounters between 129,991 VA patients and 774 nurses were included in the study. Patients were 61% non-Hispanic White [NHW], 28% African-American, 7% Hispanic, 2% Asian-American, <1% American Indian/Alaska Native, and 1% mixed ethnicity. After controlling for demographic characteristics of nurses and patients, African-American, Hispanic, and mixed-ethnicity patients reported higher average PI scores but lower HRs and RRs than NHW patients. NHW patients received higher priority ESI ratings with lower PI when compared against African-American patients. NHW patients with low to moderate HRs also received higher priority ESI scoring than African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American, and Mixed-ethnicity patients; however, when HR was high NHWs received lower priority ESI ratings than each of the minority groups (except for African-Americans).This study provides evidence for systemic differences in how patients' vital signs are applied for determining ESI scores for different ethnic groups. Additional prospective research will be needed to determine how this specific person-level mechanism affects healthcare quality and outcomes.
| S-EPMC4998763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectiveDespite numerous extant measures assessing context-specific elements of care coordination, we are unaware of any comprehensive, team-based instrument that measures the requisite mechanisms and conditions required to coordinate successfully. In this study we develop and validate the psychometric properties of the Coordination Practices Survey, a context-agnostic measure of coordination for primary care teams.MethodsCoordination items were developed based on a systematic literature review; items from previously developed scales were adapted and new items were created as needed; all items were refined after subject matter expert review and feedback. We collected data from Primary Care teams drawn from 1200 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers and outpatient clinics nationwide. 1645 primary care team members from 512 patient aligned care teams in the Veterans Health Administration completed the survey from 2015 to 2016. Psychometric properties were assessed after data collection using Cronbach's alpha, intraclass correlations and multilevel confirmatory factor analysis to assess the factor structure.ResultsOur findings confirmed the psychometric properties of two distinguishable subscales of coordination: (a) Accountability and (b) Common Understanding. The within- and between-team latent structure of each subscale exhibited adequate fit to the data, as well as appropriately high Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlations. There was insufficient variability in responses to the predictability subscale to properly assess its psychometric properties.ConclusionWith context-specific validation, our subscales of accountability and common understanding may be used to assess coordination processes in other contexts for both research and operational applications.
| S-EPMC9549451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMultiple comorbidities thought to be associated with poor coordination due to the need for shared treatment plans and active involvement of patients, among other factors. Cardiovascular and mental health comorbidities present potential coordination challenges relative to diabetes.ObjectiveTo determine how cardiovascular and mental health comorbidities relate to patient-centered coordinated care in the Department of Veterans Affairs.DesignThis observational study used a 2 × 2 factorial design to determine how cardiovascular and mental health comorbidities are associated with patient perceptions of coordinated care among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as a focal condition.ParticipantsFive thousand eight hundred six patients attributed to 262 primary care providers, from a national sample of 29 medical centers, who had completed an online survey of patient-centered coordinated care in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).Main measuresEight dimensions from the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care (PPIC) survey, a state-of-the-art measure of patients' perspective on coordinated and patient-centered care.Key resultsMental health conditions were associated with significantly lower patient experiences of coordinated care. Hypotheses for disease severity were not supported, with associations in the hypothesized direction for only one dimension.ConclusionsResults suggest that VA may be adequately addressing coordination needs related to cardiovascular conditions, but more attention could be placed on coordination for mental health conditions. While specialized programs for more severe conditions (e.g., heart failure and serious mental illness) are important, coordination is also needed for more common, less severe conditions (e.g., hypertension, depression, anxiety). Strengthening coordination for common, less severe conditions is particularly important as VA develops alternative models (e.g., community care) that may negatively impact the degree to which care is coordinated.
| S-EPMC6542895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Team coordination within clinical care settings is a critical component of effective patient care. Less is known about the extent, effectiveness, and impact of coordination activities among professionals within VA Patient-Aligned Care Teams (PACTs). This study will address these gaps by describing the specific, fundamental tasks and practices involved in PACT coordination, their impact on performance measures, and the role of coordination task complexity.First, we will use a web-based survey of coordination practices among 1600 PACTs in the national VHA. Survey findings will characterize PACT coordination practices and assess their association with clinical performance measures. Functional job analysis, using 6-8 subject matter experts who are 3rd and 4th year residents in VA Primary Care rotations, will be utilized to identify the tasks involved in completing clinical performance measures to standard. From this, expert ratings of coordination complexity will be used to determine the level of coordinative complexity required for each of the clinical performance measures drawn from the VA External Peer Review Program (EPRP). For objective 3, data collected from the first two methods will evaluate the effect of clinical complexity on the relationships between measures of PACT coordination and their ratings on the clinical performance measures.Results from this study will support successful implementation of coordinated team-based work in clinical settings by providing knowledge regarding which aspects of care require the most complex levels of coordination and how specific coordination practices impact clinical performance.
| S-EPMC4714534 | biostudies-other
Project description:Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) grew exponentially in the last decade with more than 550 courts, dockets and tracks operating in the U.S. Eligibility criteria and operating practices of VTCs vary widely. Existing logic models guide the activities of these courts, but do not explicitly address the distinct missions and priorities of different agencies that support VTCs. To facilitate communication and research to address this gap, we propose a logic model of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) role in VTCs. To construct the VA-VTC logic model, we adapted an existing logic model and held expert panels with VA staff, clinical leaders and researchers to discuss and refine the model. The VA-VTC logic model is a novel contribution to current thinking about VTCs and clarifies the potential resources, activities, outputs, outcomes and population impacts that are under the purview of the VA. Explicitly recognizing the VA as a separate partner in VTCs, this logic model can be a tool for communication with criminal justice agencies to facilitate broader discussions about the mechanisms driving VTC outcomes. This model can also be continuously updated as we learn from research and evaluation efforts about VTCs, ultimate improving the effectiveness of the VA's role in these courts.
| S-EPMC6996232 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Veterans Health Administration (VA) has undertaken a major initiative to transform care through implementation of Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs). Based on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) concept, PACT aims to improve access, continuity, coordination, and comprehensiveness using team-based care that is patient-driven and patient-centered. However, how VA should adapt PACT to meet the needs of special populations, such as women Veterans (WVs), was not considered in initial implementation guidance. WVs' numerical minority in VA healthcare settings (approximately 7-8 % of users) creates logistical challenges to delivering gender-sensitive comprehensive care. The main goal of this study is to test an evidence-based quality improvement approach (EBQI) to tailoring PACT to meet the needs of WVs, incorporating comprehensive primary care services and gender-specific care in gender-sensitive environments, thereby accelerating achievement of PACT tenets for women (Women's Health (WH)-PACT).Methods/designEBQI is a systematic approach to developing a multilevel research-clinical partnership that engages senior organizational leaders and local quality improvement (QI) teams in adapting and implementing new care models in the context of prior evidence and local practice conditions, with researchers providing technical support, formative feedback, and practice facilitation. In a 12-site cluster randomized trial, we will evaluate WH-PACT model achievement using patient, provider, staff, and practice surveys, in addition to analyses of secondary administrative and chart-based data. We will explore impacts of receipt of WH-PACT care on quality of chronic disease care and prevention, health status, patient satisfaction and experience of care, provider experience, utilization, and costs. Using mixed methods, we will assess pre-post practice contexts; document EBQI activities undertaken in participating facilities and their relationship to provider/staff and team actions/attitudes; document WH-PACT implementation; and examine barriers/facilitators to EBQI-supported WH-PACT implementation through a combination of semi-structured interviews and monthly formative progress narratives and administrative data.DiscussionLack of gender-sensitive comprehensive care has demonstrated consequences for the technical quality and ratings of care among WVs and may contribute to decisions to continue use or seek care elsewhere under the US Affordable Care Act. We hypothesize that tailoring PACT implementation through EBQI may improve the experience and quality of care at many levels.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02039856.
| S-EPMC4950741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough strain on hospital capacity has been associated with increased mortality in nonpandemic settings, studies are needed to examine the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical care capacity and mortality.ObjectiveTo examine whether COVID-19 mortality was associated with COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) strain.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted among veterans with COVID-19, as confirmed by polymerase chain reaction or antigen testing in the laboratory from March through August 2020, cared for at any Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital with 10 or more patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. The follow-up period was through November 2020. Data were analyzed from March to November 2020.ExposuresReceiving treatment for COVID-19 in the ICU during a period of increased COVID-19 ICU load, with load defined as mean number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the patient's hospital stay divided by the number of ICU beds at that facility, or increased COVID-19 ICU demand, with demand defined as mean number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU during the patient's stay divided by the maximum number of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU.Main outcomes and measuresAll-cause mortality was recorded through 30 days after discharge from the hospital.ResultsAmong 8516 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 88 VA hospitals, 8014 (94.1%) were men and mean (SD) age was 67.9 (14.2) years. Mortality varied over time, with 218 of 954 patients (22.9%) dying in March, 399 of 1594 patients (25.0%) dying in April, 143 of 920 patients (15.5%) dying in May, 179 of 1314 patients (13.6%) dying in June, 297 of 2373 patients (12.5%) dying in July, and 174 of 1361 (12.8%) patients dying in August (P < .001). Patients with COVID-19 who were treated in the ICU during periods of increased COVID-19 ICU demand had increased risk of mortality compared with patients treated during periods of low COVID-19 ICU demand (ie, demand of ≤25%); the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.81-1.22; P = .93) for patients treated when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 25% to 50%, 1.19 (95% CI, 0.95-1.48; P = .13) when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 50% to 75%, and 1.94 (95% CI, 1.46-2.59; P < .001) when COVID-19 ICU demand was more than 75% to 100%. No association between COVID-19 ICU demand and mortality was observed for patients with COVID-19 not in the ICU. The association between COVID-19 ICU load and mortality was not consistent over time (ie, early vs late in the pandemic).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that although facilities augmented ICU capacity during the pandemic, strains on critical care capacity were associated with increased COVID-19 ICU mortality. Tracking COVID-19 ICU demand may be useful to hospital administrators and health officials as they coordinate COVID-19 admissions across hospitals to optimize outcomes for patients with this illness.
| S-EPMC7816100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High-quality supportive care is an essential component of comprehensive cancer care. We implemented a patient-centered quality of cancer care survey to examine and identify predictors of quality of supportive care for bowel problems, pain, fatigue, depression, and other symptoms among 1,109 patients with colorectal cancer.Patients with new diagnosis of colorectal cancer at any Veterans Health Administration medical center nationwide in 2008 were ascertained through the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry and sent questionnaires assessing a variety of aspects of patient-centered cancer care. We received questionnaires from 63% of eligible patients (N = 1,109). Descriptive analyses characterizing patient experiences with supportive care and binary logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of receipt of help wanted for each of the five symptom categories.There were significant gaps in patient-centered quality of supportive care, beginning with symptom assessment. In multivariable modeling, the impact of clinical factors and patient race on odds of receiving wanted help varied by symptom. Coordination of care quality predicted receipt of wanted help for all symptoms, independent of patient demographic or clinical characteristics.This study revealed substantial gaps in patient-centered quality of care, difficult to characterize through quality measurement relying on medical record review alone. It established the feasibility of collecting patient-reported quality measures. Improving quality measurement of supportive care and implementing patient-reported outcomes in quality-measurement systems are high priorities for improving the processes and outcomes of care for patients with cancer.
| S-EPMC3940539 | biostudies-other