Dataset Information

Interorganizational Care Coordination of Rural Veterans by Veterans Affairs and Community Care Programs: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the unique context of rural Veterans' health care needs, expansion of US Department of Veterans Affairs and Community Care programs under the MISSION Act, and the uncertainties of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is critical to understand what may support effective interorganizational care coordination for increased access to high-quality care.

Objectives

We conducted a systematic review to examine the interorganizational care coordination initiatives that Veterans Affairs (VA) and community partners have pursued in caring for rural Veterans, including challenges and opportunities, organizational domains shaping care coordination, and among these, initiatives that improve or impede health care outcomes.

Research design

We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search 2 electronic databases (PubMed and Embase) for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2009 and May 2020. Building on prior research, we conducted a systematic review.

Results

Sixteen articles met our criteria. Each captured a unique health care focus while examining common challenges. Four organizational domains emerged: policy and administration, culture, mechanisms, and relational practices. Exemplars highlight how initiatives improve or impede rural health care delivery.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review, to our knowledge, examining interorganizational care coordination of rural Veterans by VA and Community Care programs. Results provide exemplars of interorganizational care coordination domains and program effectiveness. It suggests that partners' efforts to align their coordination domains can improve health care, with rurality serving as a critical contextual factor. Findings are important for policies, practices, and research of VA and Community Care partners committed to improving access and health care for rural Veterans.

SUBMITTER: Garvin LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8132902 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Insomnia is a widespread issue among United States adults and rates of insomnia among veterans are even higher than the general population. Prior research examining primary care provider (PCP) perspectives on insomnia treatment found that: sleep hygiene and pharmacotherapy are the primary treatments offered; PCPs tend to focus on perceived causes of insomnia rather than the insomnia itself; and neither patients nor providers are satisfied with insomnia treatment options. Although insomnia complaints are typically first reported to primary care providers, little research has focused on perspectives regarding insomnia treatment among PCPs working in the largest integrated health care system in the United States-the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. This study was conducted to examine VA PCP perceptions of the availability of insomnia treatments, identify specific strategies offered by PCPs, and examine perceptions regarding the importance of treating insomnia and the role of comorbid conditions.A survey was conducted within the VA health care system. Primary care providers completed surveys electronically.A high percentage of veterans (modal response = 20% to 39%) seen in VA primary care settings report an insomnia complaint to their provider. Almost half of respondents do not consistently document insomnia in the medical record (46% endorsed "sometimes," "rarely," or "never"). PCPs routinely advise sleep hygiene recommendations for insomnia (ie, avoid stimulants before bedtime [84.3%], and keep the bedroom environment quiet and dark and comfortable [68.6%]) and many are uncertain if cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia is available at their facility (43.1%).Findings point to the need for systems-level changes within health care systems, including the adoption of evidence-based clinical practice standards for insomnia and PCP education about the processes that maintain insomnia.A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 937.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to further knowledge of older Veterans' experiences with transitioning to the community from Veterans Affairs nursing homes (Community Living Centers or CLCs) with emphasis on social functioning. DESIGN:A qualitative study design was used in addition to administration of standardized depression and mental status screens. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Veterans (n = 18) and caregivers (n = 14) were purposively sampled and recruited from 2 rural CLCs in Upstate New York. METHODS:Semistructured interviews were completed with Veterans in the CLC prior to discharge (to explore experiences during the CLC stay and expectations regarding discharge and returning home) and in the home 2-4 weeks postdischarge (to explore daily routines and perceptions of overall health, mental health, and social functioning). Caregivers participated in 1 interview, completed postdischarge. The 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire and the Brief Interview for Mental Status were administered postdischarge. RESULTS:Thematic analysis of verbatim transcriptions revealed 3 inter-related themes: (1) Veterans may experience improved social connectedness in CLCs by nature of the unique care environment (predominantly male, shared military experience); (2) Experiences of social engagement and connectedness varied after discharge and could be discordant with Veterans' expectations for recovery prior to discharge; and (3) Veterans may or may not describe themselves as "lonely" after discharge, when physically isolated. Veterans lacked moderate to severe cognitive impairment (Brief Interview for Mental Status: range = 14-15); however, they reported a wide range in depressive symptom severity postdischarge (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire: mean = 4.9, SD = 6.1, median/mode = 3, range = 0-23). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:This study identified a potential for increased social isolation and disengagement after discharge from Veterans Affairs nursing homes. Nursing homes should integrate social functioning assessment for their residents, while extending care planning and transitional care to address patient-centered social functioning goals.

Project description:Importance:The Veterans Affairs (VA) Community Care (CC) Program supplements VA care with community-based medical services. However, access gains and value provided by CC have not been well described. Objectives:To compare the access, cost, and quality of elective coronary revascularization procedures between VA and CC hospitals and to evaluate if procedural volume or publicly reported quality data can be used to identify high-value care. Design, Setting, and Participants:Observational cohort study of veterans younger than 65 years undergoing an elective coronary revascularization, controlling for differences in risk factors using propensity adjustment. The setting was VA and CC hospitals. Participants were veterans undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and veterans undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2011. The analysis was conducted between July 2014 and July 2017. Exposures:Receipt of an elective coronary revascularization at a VA vs CC facility. Main Outcomes and Measures:Access to care as measured by travel distance, 30-day mortality, and costs. Results:In the 3 years ending on September 30, 2011, a total of 13 237 elective PCIs (79.1% at the VA) and 5818 elective CABG procedures (83.6% at the VA) were performed in VA or CC hospitals among veterans meeting study inclusion criteria. On average, use of CC was associated with reduced net travel by 53.6 miles for PCI and by 73.3 miles for CABG surgery compared with VA-only care. Adjusted 30-day mortality after PCI was higher in CC compared with VA (1.54% for CC vs 0.65% for VA, P < .001) but was similar after CABG surgery (1.33% for CC vs 1.51% for VA, P = .74). There were no differences in adjusted 30-day readmission rates for PCI (7.04% for CC vs 7.73% for VA, P = .66) or CABG surgery (8.13% for CC vs 7.00% for VA, P = .28). The mean adjusted PCI cost was higher in CC ($22 025 for CC vs $15 683 for VA, P < .001). The mean adjusted CABG cost was lower in CC ($55 526 for CC vs $63 144 for VA, P < .01). Neither procedural volume nor publicly reported mortality data identified hospitals that provided higher-value care with the exception that CABG mortality was lower in small-volume CC hospitals. Conclusions and Relevance:In this veteran cohort, PCIs performed in CC hospitals were associated with shorter travel distance but with higher mortality, higher costs, and minimal travel savings compared with VA hospitals. The CABG procedures performed in CC hospitals were associated with shorter travel distance, similar mortality, and lower costs. As the VA considers expansion of the CC program, ongoing assessments of value and access gains are essential to optimize veteran outcomes and VA spending.