Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Veterans with healthcare needs utilize both Veterans Health Administration (VA) and non-VA hospitals. These dual-use veterans are at high risk of adverse outcomes due to the lack of coordination for safe transitions. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to understand the barriers and facilitators to providing high-quality continuum of care for veterans transitioning from non-VA hospitals to the VA primary care setting. DESIGN:Guided by the practical robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) and the ideal transitions of care, we conducted a qualitative assessment using semi-structured interviews with clinicians, staff, and patients. SETTING:This study was conducted at a single urban VA medical center and two non-VA hospitals. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 70 participants, including 52 clinicians and staff (23 VA and 29 non-VA) involved in patient transition and 18 veterans recently discharged from non-VA hospitals, were included in this study. APPROACH:Data were analyzed using a conventional content analysis and managed in Atlas.ti (Berlin, Germany). RESULTS:Four major themes emerged where participants consistently discussed that transitions were delayed when they were not able to (1) identify patients as veterans and notify VA primary care of discharge, (2) transfer non-VA hospital medical records to VA primary care, (3) obtain follow-up care appointments with VA primary care, and (4) write VA formulary medications for veterans that they could fill at VA pharmacies. Participants also discussed factors involved in smooth transition and recommendations to improve care coordination. CONCLUSIONS:All participants perceived the current transition-of-care process across healthcare systems to be inefficient. Efforts to improve quality and safety in transitional care should address the challenges clinicians and patients experience when transitioning from non-VA hospitals to VA primary care.

SUBMITTER: Ayele RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7064299 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Ayele Roman A RA Lawrence Emily E McCreight Marina M Fehling Kelty K Glasgow Russell E RE Rabin Borsika A BA Burke Robert E RE Battaglia Catherine C

Journal of hospital medicine 20200301 3

<h4>Background</h4>Veterans with healthcare needs utilize both Veterans Health Administration (VA) and non-VA hospitals. These dual-use veterans are at high risk of adverse outcomes due to the lack of coordination for safe transitions.<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim of this study was to understand the barriers and facilitators to providing high-quality continuum of care for veterans transitioning from non-VA hospitals to the VA primary care setting.<h4>Design</h4>Guided by the practical robust implem ...[more]

PMID: 31634102

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWomen Veterans have unique healthcare needs and often experience comorbid health conditions. Despite this, many women Veterans are not enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and do not use VHA services. Underutilization of VHA services may be particularly prevalent among rural women Veterans, who may experience unique barriers to using VHA care. Nonetheless, knowledge of rural women Veterans and their experiences remains limited. We sought to understand rural women Veterans' perceptions and needs related to VHA healthcare, including barriers to enrolling in and using VHA services, and perspectives on how to communicate with rural women Veterans about VHA services.MethodsRural women Veterans were recruited through community engagement with established partners and a mass mailing to rural women Veterans not enrolled in or using VHA healthcare. Ten virtual focus groups were conducted with a total of twenty-nine rural women Veterans (27 not enrolled in VHA care and 2 who had not used VHA care in the past 5 years) in 2021. A thematic inductive analytic approach was used to analyze focus group transcripts.FindingsPrimary themes regarding rural women Veterans' perceptions of barriers to enrollment and use of VHA healthcare included: (1) poor communication about eligibility and the process of enrollment; (2) belief that VHA does not offer sufficient women's healthcare services; and (3) inconvenience of accessing VHA facilities.ConclusionAlthough VHA has substantially expanded healthcare services for women Veterans, awareness of such services and the nuances of eligibility and enrollment remains an impediment to enrolling in and using VHA healthcare among rural women Veterans. Recommended strategies include targeted communication with rural women Veterans not enrolled in VHA care to increase their awareness of the enrollment process, eligibility, and expansion of women's healthcare services. Creative strategies to address access and transportation barriers in rural locations are also needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Improving care coordination is a key priority for many healthcare systems. However, initiatives to improve care coordination are complex to implement and have produced mixed results. A better understanding of how to craft and support implementation of effective care coordination strategies is needed. OBJECTIVE:To identify and understand the challenges and factors encountered by Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) staff in performing care coordination tasks in outpatient clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). DESIGN:Qualitative study using semi-structured formative evaluation interviews. PARTICIPANTS:Fourteen interviews with 18 clinical frontline managers and staff from 12 clinic sites across five VA health systems. INTERVENTIONS:This paper reports on baseline data collected for the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project. CTAC aims to improve patients' experience of care coordination within VA primary care and between PACT and other outpatient and community settings. APPROACH:We conducted pre-implementation telephone interviews with frontline managers and staff, primarily nurse managers. KEY RESULTS:PACT staff described challenges in aligning care coordination priorities across different levels of the VA system, including staff, patients, and leadership. Additionally, PACT staff noted challenges coordinating care both within and outside the VA, and identified resource barriers impeding their care coordination efforts. To address these challenges, staff made several recommendations for improvement, including (1) contingency staffing to address staff burnout; (2) additional PACT training for new staff; (3) clarification of care coordination roles and responsibilities; and (4) and care coordination initiatives that align both with centrally initiated care coordination programs and frontline needs. CONCLUSION:In the VA and similarly complex healthcare systems, our findings suggest the need for care coordination strategies that are buttressed by a system-level vision for care coordination, backed up by clear roles and responsibilities for information exchange between primary care staff and other settings, and multidimensional accountability metrics that encompass patient-, staff-, and system-level goals.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care providers (PCPs) vary in skills to effectively treat depression. Key features of evidence-based collaborative care models (CCMs) include the availability of depression care managers (DCMs) and mental health specialists (MHSs) in primary care. Little is known, however, about the relationships between PCP characteristics, CCM features, and PCP depression care.ObjectiveTo assess relationships between various CCM features, PCP characteristics, and PCP depression management.DesignCross-sectional analysis of a provider survey.Participants180 PCPs in eight VA sites nationwide.Main measuresIndependent variables included scales measuring comfort and difficulty with depression care; collaboration with a MHS; self-reported depression caseload; availability of a collocated MHS, and co-management with a DCM or MHS. Covariates included provider type and gender. For outcomes, we assessed PCP self-reported performance of key depression management behaviors in primary care in the past 6 months.Key resultsResponse rate was 52 % overall, with 47 % attending physicians, 34 % residents, and 19 % nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Half (52 %) reported greater than eight veterans with depression in their panels and a MHS collocated in primary care (50 %). Seven of the eight clinics had a DCM. In multivariable analysis, significant predictors for PCP depression management included comfort, difficulty, co-management with MHSs and numbers of veterans with depression in their panels.ConclusionsPCPs who felt greater ease and comfort in managing depression, co-managed with MHSs, and reported higher depression caseloads, were more likely to report performing depression management behaviors. Neither a collocated MHS, collaborating with a MHS, nor co-managing with a DCM independently predicted PCP depression management. Because the success of collaborative care for depression depends on the ability and willingness of PCPs to engage in managing depression themselves, along with other providers, more research is necessary to understand how to engage PCPs in depression management.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Organisational change in health systems is common. Success is often tied to the actors involved, including their awareness of the change, personal engagement and ownership of it. In many health systems, one of the most common changes we are witnessing is the redevelopment of long-standing hospitals. However, we know little about how hospital staff understand and experience such potentially far-reaching organisational change. The purpose of this study is to explore the understanding and experiences of hospital staff in the early stages of organisational change, using a hospital redevelopment in Sydney, Australia as a case study. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 46 clinical and non-clinical staff working at a large metropolitan hospital. Hospital staff were moving into a new building, not moving, or had moved into a different building two years prior. Questions asked staff about their level of awareness of the upcoming redevelopment and their experiences in the early stage of this change. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS:Some staff expressed apprehension and held negative expectations regarding the organisational change. Concerns included inadequate staffing and potential for collaboration breakdown due to new layout of workspaces. These fears were compounded by current experiences of feeling uninformed about the change, as well as feelings of being fatigued and under-staffed in the constantly changing hospital environment. Nevertheless, balancing this, many staff reported positive expectations regarding the benefits to patients of the change and the potential for staff to adapt in the face of this change. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study suggest that it is important to understand prospectively how actors involved make sense of organisational change, in order to potentially assuage concerns and alleviate negative expectations. Throughout the processes of organisational change, such as a hospital redevelopment, staff need to be engaged, adequately informed, trained, and to feel supported by management. The use of champions of varying professions and lead departments, may be useful to address concerns, adequately inform, and promote a sense of engagement among staff.

Project description:BackgroundCognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is a highly effective nonpharmacological intervention that is widely considered the gold standard for insomnia treatment. Insomnia is a prevalent and debilitating public health concern. Up to one third of the general population struggles with chronic insomnia, greatly increasing the risk for chronic pain and inflammation, depression and suicide, and cognitive decline. Over the last 10 years, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) evidence-based psychotherapy training program has trained nearly 1000 providers to deliver CBT-I in hospitals and clinics nationwide. Despite increased access, most patients with insomnia receive sleeping medications instead of CBT-I. This is particularly concerning for vulnerable populations, like older adults, who may be at increased risk of harms from medications. The goal of this study was to obtain a broad range of perspectives on CBT-I implementation from providers who commonly utilize and deliver CBT-I. This work identifies barriers and successful strategies used to overcome these barriers to guide future implementation efforts promoting evidence-based sleep care.MethodsSemi-structured interviews, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a guide, were conducted with 17 providers from five Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities (8 primary care physicians, 4 primary care psychologists, and 5 CBT-I coordinators). We used a thematic analysis approach in which common ideas were identified across interviews and then grouped into larger conceptual themes. Data were concurrently collected and analyzed with rapid assessment process (RAP) techniques.ResultsFindings suggested implementation barriers and facilitators related to the CFIR constructs of intervention characteristic (e.g., providers unfamiliar with primary evidence of CBT-I effectiveness), inner setting (e.g., sleep as a low relative priority in primary care), and outer setting (e.g., lack of external incentives for increasing CBT-I use), as well as several successful strategies, including use of local champions and supportive opinion leaders.ConclusionsThese findings suggest promising opportunities to improve implementation of CBT-I, especially at facilities with less well-established CBT-I programs. Formal implementation trials are needed to systematically determine the real-world impact of strategies such as enlisting CBT-I champions, informing opinion leaders about CBT-I services, and promoting network weaving among primary care, mental health, and sleep clinics.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Burnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown. OBJECTIVE:To examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015-6/19/2017. SETTING:Sample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services. PARTICIPANTS:10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices. MAIN MEASURE:Burnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure. KEY RESULTS:Burnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]?=?1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR?=?1.34, 95% CI, 1.10-1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2-5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR?=?1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR?=?1.42; 95%CI, 1.16-1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR?=?1.36; 95%CI, 1.03-1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff. CONCLUSIONS:Burnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout.

Project description:ObjectivesTo understand current practices, challenges, and opportunities for a systematic assessment of family caregivers' needs and risks in primary care.DesignQualitative study consisting of in-depth semi-structured interviews.SettingFour primary care practices located in urban and rural settings.ParticipantsPrimary care clinicians, staff, and administrators (N = 30), as well as older adult patients and family caregivers (N = 40), recruited using purposive and maximum variation sampling.MeasurementsCurrent experiences, challenges, and opportunities for integrating standardized caregiver assessment into primary care delivery. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method of data analysis.ResultsParticipating clinicians had been in practice for an average of 12.8 years (range = 1-36 y). Patients had a mean age of 84.0 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.7); caregivers had a mean age of 67.0 years (SD = 9.3). There was wide variability in current practices for identifying caregivers' needs and risks, encompassing direct and indirect approaches, when such issues are considered. Participants posited that integrating standardized caregiver assessment into primary care delivery could help improve patient care, enhance clinician-caregiver communication, and validate caregivers' efforts. Barriers to assessment included insufficient time and reimbursement, liability concerns, lack of awareness of community resources, and concerns about patient autonomy. To facilitate future uptake of caregiver assessment, participants recommended brief self-administered assessment tools and post-screen discussions with practice staff.ConclusionIdentification of caregivers' needs and risks in primary care is highly variable. Integration of standardized caregiver assessment into practice requires coordinated changes to policy, revision of practice workflows, and an interdisciplinary approach to the development of appropriate assessment tools. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1262-1270, 2020.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets