Partnership Forum: The Role of Research in the Transformation of Veterans Affairs Community Care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mengeling MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8132916 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Timely access to outpatient care was a primary driver behind the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) increased purchase of community-based care under the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, known as the Choice Act. To compare veterans' experiences in VA-delivered and community-based outpatient care after implementation of the act, we assessed veterans' scores on four dimensions of experience-access, communication, coordination, and provider rating-for outpatient specialty, primary, and mental health care received during 2016-17. Patient experiences were better for VA than for community care in all respects except access. For specialty care, access scores were better in the community; for primary and mental health care, access scores were similar in the two settings. Although all specialty care scores and the primary care coordination score improved over time, the gaps between settings did not shrink. As purchased care further expands under the VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018, which replaced the Choice Act in 2019, monitoring of meaningful differences between settings should continue, with the results used to inform both VA purchasing decisions and patients' care choices.
| S-EPMC10031805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 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.ObjectivesWe 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 designWe 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.ResultsSixteen 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.ConclusionsThis 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.
| S-EPMC8132902 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018 authorized a major expansion of purchased care in the community for Veterans experiencing access barriers in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.ObjectiveTo estimate changes in primary care, mental health, and emergency/urgent care visits in the VA and community fiscal years (FY) 2018-2021 and differences between rural and urban clinics.DesignA national, longitudinal study of VA clinics and outpatient utilization. Clinic-level analysis was conducted to estimate changes in number and proportion of clinic visits provided in the community associated with the MISSION Act adjusting for clinic characteristics and underlying time trends.ParticipantsIn total, 1050 VA clinics and 6.6 million Veterans assigned to primary care.Main measuresNumber of primary care, mental health, and emergency/urgent care visits provided in the VA and community and the proportion provided in the community.Key resultsNationally, community primary care visits increased by 107% (50,611 to 104,923), community mental health visits increased by 167% (100,701 to 268,976), and community emergency/urgent care visits increased by 129% (142,262 to 325,407) from the first quarter of 2018 to last quarter of 2021. In adjusted analysis, after MISSION Act implementation, there was an increase in community visits as a proportion of total clinic visits for emergency/urgent care and mental health but not primary care. Rural clinics had larger increases in the proportion of community visits for primary care and emergency/urgent care than urban clinics.ConclusionsAfter the MISSION Act, more outpatient care shifted to the community for emergency/urgent care and mental health care but not primary care. Community care utilization increased more in rural compared to urban clinics for primary care and emergency/urgent care. These findings highlight the challenges and importance of maintaining provider networks in rural areas to ensure access to care.
| S-EPMC11347504 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5529136 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC7490594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaccine hesitancy undermines the control of the COVID-19 pandemic and has been observed in health care workers. As part of a quality improvement effort, we aimed to describe reasons for vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among employees in the Veteran Affairs Portland Health Care System (VAPORHCS). We administered an open-ended and web-based survey to all VAPORHCS employees in July 2021. Data were analyzed using a rapid usability framework, whereby qualitative data were synthesized into thematic categories to inform decision making. Among the 1157 employees who completed the survey, 88% reported that they had received the vaccine and 12% reported that they did not receive the vaccine. Over half (54%) of vaccinated respondents reported having initial hesitancy to the COVID-19 vaccine but overcame their hesitancy by deciding that the vaccine's benefits outweighed its risks. Reasons for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance were: 1) individual and community health; 2) protect vulnerable and unvaccinated family members; 3) promote patient and workplace safety; 4) scientific evidence. Reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among unvaccinated employees were: 1) concerns with safety and risk profile of vaccine; 2) mistrust in vaccine development; 3) personal choice; 4) openness to future vaccination. These results provide information for tailored vaccine messaging efforts as well as emphasizes the need for trust-building between employees and health care organizations.
| S-EPMC8783525 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5838592 | biostudies-literature
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:This cohort study examines changes in the use of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals by VA enrollees and mortality associated with these policies.
| S-EPMC9187948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIntegrated 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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.ExposuresRisk of hospitalization and assignment to general vs specialized primary care.Main outcome and measuresHigh-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).ResultsThe 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 relevanceThe 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.
| S-EPMC7324956 | biostudies-literature