Dataset Information

Factors affecting the implementation of evidence-based Progressive Tinnitus Management in Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Progressive Tinnitus Management (PTM) is an evidence-based interdisciplinary stepped-care approach to improving quality of life for patients with tinnitus. PTM was endorsed by Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Audiology leadership in 2009. Factors affecting implementation of PTM are unknown. We conducted a study to: 1) estimate levels of PTM program implementation in VA Audiology and Mental Health clinics across the country; and 2) identify barriers and facilitators to PTM implementation based on the experiences of VA audiologists and mental health providers.

Method

We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey targeting Audiology and Mental Health leaders at 144 major VA facilities. Quantitative analyses summarized respondents' facility characteristics and levels of program implementation (full PTM, partial PTM, or no PTM). Qualitative analyses identified themes in factors influencing the implementation of PTM across VA sites.

Results

Surveys from 87 audiologists and 66 mental health clinicians revealed that few facilities offered full PTM; the majority offered partial or no PTM. Inductive analysis of the open-ended survey responses identified seven factors influencing implementation of PTM: 1) available resources, 2) service collaboration, 3) prioritization, 4) Veterans' preferences and needs, 5) clinician training, 6) awareness of (evidence-based) options, and 7) perceptions of scope of practice.

Conclusion

Results suggest wide variation in services provided, a need for greater engagement of mental health providers in tinnitus care, and an interest among both audiologists and mental health providers in receiving tinnitus-related training. Future research should address barriers to PTM implementation, including methods to: 1) improve understanding among mental health providers of their potential role in tinnitus management; 2) enhance coordination of tinnitus-related care between health care disciplines; and 3) collect empirical data on Veterans' need for and interest in PTM, including delivery by telehealth modalities.

SUBMITTER: Zaugg TL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7769276 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors affecting the implementation of evidence-based Progressive Tinnitus Management in Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

Zaugg Tara L TL Thielman Emily J EJ Carlson Kathleen F KF Tuepker Anaïs A Elnitsky Christine C Drummond Karen L KL Schmidt Caroline J CJ Newell Summer S Kaelin Christine C Choma Christie C Henry James A JA

PloS one 20201228 12

<h4>Purpose</h4>Progressive Tinnitus Management (PTM) is an evidence-based interdisciplinary stepped-care approach to improving quality of life for patients with tinnitus. PTM was endorsed by Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Audiology leadership in 2009. Factors affecting implementation of PTM are unknown. We conducted a study to: 1) estimate levels of PTM program implementation in VA Audiology and Mental Health clinics across the country; and 2) identify barriers and facilitators to PTM impl ...[more]

PMID: 33370307

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInfections caused by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and carbapenemase-producing (CP) CRE are difficult to treat, resulting in high mortality in healthcare settings every year. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) disseminated guidelines in 2015 and an updated directive in 2017 for control of CRE focused on laboratory testing, prevention, and management. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework was used to analyze qualitative interview data to identify contextual factors and best practices influencing implementation of the 2015 guidelines/2017 directive in VA Medical Centers (VAMCs). The overall goals were to determine CFIR constructs to target to improve CRE guideline/directive implementation and understand how CFIR, as a multi-level conceptual model, can be used to inform guideline implementation.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted at 29 VAMCs with staff involved in implementing CRE guidelines at their facility. Survey and VHA administrative data were used to identify geographically representative large and small VAMCs with varying levels of CRE incidence. Interviews addressed perceptions of guideline dissemination, laboratory testing, staff attitudes and training, patient education, and technology support. Participant responses were coded using a consensus-based mixed deductive-inductive approach guided by CFIR. A quantitative analysis comparing qualitative CFIR constructs and emergent codes to sites actively screening for CRE (vs. non-screening) and any (vs. no) CRE-positive cultures was conducted using Fisher's exact test.ResultsForty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted between October 2017 and August 2018 with laboratory staff (47%), Multi-Drug-Resistant Organism Program Coordinators (MPCs, 35%), infection preventionists (12%), and physicians (6%). Participants requested more standardized tools to promote effective communication (e.g., electronic screening). Participants also indicated that CRE-specific educational materials were needed for staff, patient, and family members. Quantitative analysis identified CRE screening or presence of CRE as being significantly associated with the following qualitative CFIR constructs: leadership engagement, relative priority, available resources, team communication, and access to knowledge and information.ConclusionsEffective CRE identification, prevention, and treatment require ongoing collaboration between clinical, microbiology, infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and infectious diseases specialists. Our results emphasize the importance of leadership's role in promoting positive facility culture, including access to resources, improving communication, and facilitating successful implementation of the CRE guidelines.

Project description:ImportanceConcerns have been raised about the adequacy of health care access among patients cared for within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.ObjectivesTo determine wait times for new patients receiving care at VA medical centers and compare wait times in the VA medical centers with wait times in the private sector (PS).Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective, repeated cross-sectional study was conducted of new appointment wait times for primary care, dermatology, cardiology, or orthopedics at VA medical centers in 15 major metropolitan areas in 2014 and 2017. Comparison data from the PS came from a published survey that used a secret shopper survey approach. Secondary analyses evaluated the change in overall and unique patients seen in the entire VA system and patient satisfaction survey measures of care access between 2014 and 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcome of interest was patient wait time. Wait times in the VA were determined directly from patient scheduling. Wait times in the PS were as reported in Merritt Hawkins surveys using the secret shopper method.ResultsCompared with the PS, overall mean VA wait times for new appointments in 2014 were similar (mean [SD] wait time, 18.7 [7.9] days PS vs 22.5 [7.3] days VA; P = .20). Department of Veterans Affairs wait times in 2014 were similar to those in the PS across specialties and regions. In 2017, overall wait times for new appointments in the VA were shorter than in the PS (mean [SD], 17.7 [5.9] vs 29.8 [16.6] days; P < .001). This was true in primary care (mean [SD], 20.0 [10.4] vs 40.7 [35.0] days; P = .005), dermatology (mean [SD], 15.6 [12.2] vs 32.6 [16.5] days; P < .001), and cardiology (mean [SD], 15.3 [12.6] vs 22.8 [10.1] days; P = .04). Wait times for orthopedics remained longer in the VA than the PS (mean [SD], 20.9 [13.3] vs 12.4 [5.5] days; P = .01), although wait time improved significantly between 2014 and 2017 in the VA for orthopedics while wait times in the PS did not change (change in mean wait times, increased 1.5 days vs decreased 5.4 days; P = .02). Secondary analysis demonstrated an increase in the number of unique patients seen and appointment encounters in the VA between 2014 and 2017 (4 996 564 to 5 118 446, and 16 476 461 to 17 331 538, respectively), and patient satisfaction measures of access also improved (satisfaction scores increased by 1.4%, 3.0%, and 4.0% for specialty care, routine primary care, and urgent primary care, P < .05).Conclusions and relevanceAlthough wait times in the VA and PS appeared to be similar in 2014, there have been interval improvements in VA wait times since then, while wait times in the PS appear to be static. These findings suggest that access to care within the VA has improved over time.

Project description:ImportanceSocioeconomic factors are associated with worse outcomes after hospitalization, but neither the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) nor the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system adjust for socioeconomic factors in profiling hospital mortality.ObjectiveTo evaluate changes in Veterans Affairs medical centers' (VAMCs') risk-standardized mortality rates among veterans hospitalized for heart failure and pneumonia after adjusting for socioeconomic factors.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, retrospective data were used to assess 131 VAMCs' risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates with or without adjustment for socioeconomic covariates. The study population included 42 892 veterans hospitalized with heart failure and 39 062 veterans hospitalized with pneumonia from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2019, to April 1, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 30-day mortality after admission. Socioeconomic covariates included neighborhood disadvantage, race/ethnicity, homelessness, rurality, nursing home residence, reason for Medicare eligibility, Medicaid and Medicare dual eligibility, and VA priority.ResultsThe study population included 42 892 veterans hospitalized with heart failure (98.2% male; mean [SD] age, 71.9 [11.4] years) and 39 062 veterans hospitalized with pneumonia (96.8% male; mean [SD] age, 71.0 [12.4] years). The addition of socioeconomic factors to the CMS models modestly increased the C statistic from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.77-0.78) to 0.78 (95% CI, 0.78-0.78) for 30-day mortality after heart failure and from 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72-0.73) to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.73-0.74) for 30-day mortality after pneumonia. Mortality rates were highly correlated (Spearman correlations of ≥0.98) in models that included or did not include socioeconomic factors. With the use of the CMS model for heart failure, VAMCs in the lowest quintile had a mean (SD) mortality rate of 6.0% (0.4%), those in the middle 3 quintiles had a mean (SD) mortality rate of 7.2% (0.4%), and those in the highest quintile had a mean (SD) mortality rate of 8.8% (0.6%). After the inclusion of socioeconomic covariates, the adjusted mean (SD) mortality was 6.1% (0.4%) for hospitals in the lowest quintile, 7.2% (0.4%) for those in the middle 3 quintiles, and 8.6% (0.5%) for those in the highest quintile. The mean absolute change in rank after socioeconomic adjustment was 3.0 ranking positions (interquartile range, 1.0-4.0) among hospitals in the highest quintile of mortality after heart failure and 4.4 ranking positions (interquartile range, 1.0-6.0) among VAMCs in the lowest quintile. Similar findings were observed for mortality rankings in pneumonia and after inclusion of clinical covariates.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that adjustments for socioeconomic factors did not meaningfully change VAMCs' risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates for veterans hospitalized for heart failure and pneumonia. The implications of such adjustments should be examined for other quality measures and health systems.

Project description:BackgroundTinnitus is a common condition, especially prevalent among military Veterans. Progressive Tinnitus Management (PTM) is an interdisciplinary, structured, stepped-care approach to providing clinical services, including teaching coping skills, to people bothered by tinnitus. PTM has been shown to be effective at reducing functional distress, but implementation of the intervention outside of a research setting has not been studied, even though dissemination is underway within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system in the United States. This study was designed to address a gap in knowledge of PTM clinical implementation to date, with a focus on factors facilitating or hindering implementation in VHA audiology and mental health clinic contexts, and whether implementing sites had developed intervention adaptations.MethodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 21 audiology and mental health clinicians and service chiefs across a regional service network. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a hybrid inductive-deductive analytic approach guided by existing implementation research frameworks and then iteratively developed for emergent themes.ResultsPTM prioritization was rare overall, with providers across disciplines challenged by lack of capacity for implementation, but with differences by discipline in challenges to prioritization. Where PTM was prioritized and delivered, this was facilitated by perception of unique value, provider's own experience of tinnitus, observation/experience with PTM delivery, intervention fit with provider's skills, and an environment with supportive leadership and adaptive reserve. PTM was frequently adapted to local contexts to address delivery challenges and diversify patient options. Adaptations included shifting from group to individual formats, reducing or combining sessions, and employing novel therapeutic approaches.ConclusionsExisting adaptations highlight the need to better understand mechanisms underlying PTM's effectiveness, and research on the impact of adaptations on patient outcomes is an important next step. Prioritization of PTM is a key barrier to the scale up and spread of this evidence-based intervention. Developing clinician champions may facilitate dissemination, especially if accompanied by signals of systemic prioritization. Novel approaches exposing clinicians and administrators to PTM may identify and develop clinical champions. Acknowledging the potential for PTM adaptations may make delivery more feasible in the context of existing system constraints and priorities.

Dataset Information

Factors affecting the implementation of evidence-based Progressive Tinnitus Management in Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Factors affecting the implementation of evidence-based Progressive Tinnitus Management in Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets