Dual use of VA and non-VA services among primary care patients with depression.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liu CF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2642572 | biostudies-other | 2009 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSome veterans face multiple barriers to VA mental healthcare service use. However, there is limited understanding of how veterans' experiences and meaning systems shape their perceptions of barriers to VA mental health service use. In 2015, a participatory, mixed-methods project was initiated to elicit veteran-centered barriers to using mental healthcare services among a diverse sample of US rural and urban veterans. We sought to identify veteran-centric barriers to mental healthcare to increase initial engagement and continuation with VA mental healthcare services.MethodsCultural Domain Analysis, incorporated in a mixed methods approach, generated a cognitive map of veterans' barriers to care. The method involved: 1) free lists of barriers categorized through participant pile sorting; 2) multi-dimensional scaling and cluster analysis for item clusters in spatial dimensions; and 3) participant review, explanation, and interpretation for dimensions of the cultural domain. Item relations were synthesized within and across domain dimensions to contextualize mental health help-seeking behavior.ResultsParticipants determined five dimensions of barriers to VA mental healthcare services: concern about what others think; financial, personal, and physical obstacles; confidence in the VA healthcare system; navigating VA benefits and healthcare services; and privacy, security, and abuse of services.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the value of participatory methods in eliciting meaningful cultural insight into barriers of mental health utilization informed by military veteran culture. They also reinforce the importance of collaborations between the VA and Department of Defense to address the role of military institutional norms and stigmatizing attitudes in veterans' mental health-seeking behaviors.
| S-EPMC6069794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system aims to provide high-quality medical care to veterans in the USA, but the quality of VA care has recently drawn the concern of Congress. The objective of this study was to systematically review published evidence examining the quality of care provided at VA health care facilities compared to quality of care in other facilities and systems.MethodsBuilding on the search strategy and results of a prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE (from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2015) to identify relevant articles on the quality of care at VA facilities compared to non-VA facilities. Articles from the prior systematic review published from 2005 and onward were also included and re-abstracted. Studies were classified, analyzed, and summarized by the Institute of Medicine's quality dimensions.ResultsSixty-nine articles were identified (including 31 articles from the prior systematic review and 38 new articles) that address one or more Institute of Medicine quality dimensions: safety (34 articles), effectiveness (24 articles), efficiency (9 articles), patient-centeredness (5 articles), equity (4 articles), and timeliness (1 article). Studies of safety and effectiveness indicated generally better or equal performance, with some exceptions. Too few articles related to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness were found from which to reliably draw conclusions about VA care related to these dimensions.DiscussionThe VA often (but not always) performs better than or similarly to other systems of care with regard to the safety and effectiveness of care. Additional studies of quality of care in the VA are needed on all aspects of quality, but particularly with regard to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness.
| S-EPMC5215146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNot much is known about nonelderly veterans and their reliance on care from the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system when they have access to non-VA care.ObjectivesTo estimate VA reliance for nonelderly veterans enrolled in VA and Medicaid.Research designRetrospective, longitudinal analysis of Medicaid claims data and VA administrative data to compare patients' utilization of VA and Medicaid services 12 months before and for up to 12 months after Medicaid enrollment began.SubjectsNonelderly veterans (below 65 y) receiving VA care and newly enrolled in Medicaid, calendar years 2006-2010 (N=19,890).MeasuresVA reliance (proportion of care received in VA) for major categories of outpatient and inpatient care.ResultsPatients used VA outpatient care at similar levels after enrolling in Medicaid with the exceptions of emergency department (ED) and obstetrics/gynecology care, which decreased. VA inpatient utilization was similar after Medicaid enrollment for most types of care. VA-adjusted outpatient reliance was highest for mental health care (0.99) and lowest for ED care (0.02). VA-adjusted inpatient reliance was highest for respiratory (0.80) and cancer stays (0.80) and lowest for musculoskeletal stays (0.20). Associations between VA reliance and distance to VA providers varied by type of care.ConclusionsVeterans dually enrolled in Medicaid received most of their outpatient care from the VA except ED, obstetrics/gynecology, and dental care. Patients received most of their inpatient care from Medicaid except mental health, respiratory, and cancer care. Sensitivity to travel distance to VA providers explained some of these differences.
| S-EPMC6665683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOver 1100 veterans work in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as peer specialists (PSs)-those with formal training who support other veterans with similar diagnoses. A White House Executive Action mandated the pilot reassignment of VHA PSs from their usual placement in mental health to 25 primary care Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs) in order to broaden the provision of wellness services that can address many chronic illnesses. An evaluation of this initiative was undertaken to assess the impact of outside assistance on the deployment of PSs in PACTs, as implementation support is often needed to prevent challenges commonly experienced when first deploying PSs in new settings.MethodsThis study was a cluster-randomized hybrid II effectiveness-implementation trial to test the impact of minimal implementation support vs. facilitated implementation on the deployment of VHA PSs in PACT over 2 years. Twenty-five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) were recruited to reassign mental health PSs to provide wellness-oriented care in PACT. Sites in three successive cohorts (n = 7, 10, 8) over 6-month blocks were matched and randomized to each study condition. In facilitated implementation, an outside expert worked with site stakeholders through a site visit and regular calls, and provided performance data to guide the planning and address challenges. Minimal implementation sites received a webinar and access to the VHA Office of Mental Health Services work group. The two conditions were compared on PS workload data and veteran measures of activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Qualitative interviews collected information on perceived usefulness of the PS services.ResultsIn the first year, sites that received facilitation had higher numbers of unique veterans served and a higher number of PS visits, although the groups did not differ after the second year. Also, sites receiving external facilitation started delivering PS services more quickly than minimal support sites. All sites in the external facilitation condition continued in the pilot into the second year, whereas two of the sites in the minimal assistance condition dropped out after the first year. There were no differences between groups on veterans' outcomes-activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Most veterans were very positive about the help they received as evidenced in the qualitative interviews.DiscussionThese findings demonstrate that external facilitation can be effective in supporting the implementation of PSs in primary care settings. The lack of significant differences across conditions after the second year highlights the positive outcomes associated with active facilitation, while also raising the important question of whether longer-term success may require some level of ongoing facilitation and implementation support.Trial registrationThis project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02732600 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600 ).
| S-EPMC8183089 | 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
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7064299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In Ontario, Canada, healthcare for transgender individuals is accessed through primary care; however, there are a limited number of practitioners providing transgender care, and patients are often on waiting lists and/or traveling great distances to receive care. Understanding how primary care is implemented and delivered to transgender individuals is key to improving access and eliminating healthcare barriers. The purpose of this study is to understand how the implementation of primary care services for transgender individuals compares across various models of primary care delivery in Ontario. METHODS:A qualitative, exploratory, multiple-case study guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT) was used to compare transgender care delivery and implementation across three primary care models. Three cases known to provide transgender primary care and represent different primary care models in Ontario, Canada (i.e., family health team, community health centre, fee-for service physician) were explored. The NoMAD survey, a tool to measure implementation processes, and qualitative interviews with primary care practitioners and allied healthcare staff were administered. RESULTS:Using the NPT framework to guide analysis, key themes emerged about successful implementation of primary care services for transgender individuals. These themes include creating a safe space for patients, identifying gaps in services, understanding practitioners' roles, and the need for more training and education in transgender care for practitioners. CONCLUSIONS:Primary care services for transgender individuals can and should be delivered in all models of primary care. Training and awareness for healthcare practitioners are needed to develop capacity in providing primary care to transgender individuals. A greater number of practitioners and organizations are needed to take on this work, embedding and normalizing transgender care into routine practice to address barriers to access and improve quality of care for transgender individuals.
| S-EPMC6476519 | biostudies-other
Project description:People in need of mental health treatment do not access care at high rates or in a timely manner, inclusive of Veterans at Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) medical centers. Barriers to care have been identified, and one potential solution is the use of technology-based interventions within primary care. This study evaluated the Cognitive Anxiety Sensitivity Treatment (CAST), a previously developed computerized treatment that has shown efficacy in community samples for mental health symptoms including: anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and suicidal ideation. VA primary care patients with elevated anxiety sensitivity (N = 25) were recruited to participate in a mixed-method open pilot to examine acceptability, usability, and preliminary effectiveness in a VA primary care setting. Participants completed an initial visit, that included the intervention, and a one-month follow-up. Veterans found CAST to be generally acceptable, with strong usability ratings. Qualitative analyses identified areas of strength and areas for improvement for use with VA primary care Veterans. Repeated measures ANCOVAs revealed significant effects for symptoms of anxiety, depression, traumatic-stress, and suicidal ideation. CAST could potentially have a large public health impact if deployed across VA medical centers as a first-step intervention for a range of mental health presenting concerns.
| S-EPMC7429501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPosttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common in primary care patients; however, evidence-based treatments are typically only available in specialty mental healthcare settings and often not accessed.ObjectiveTo test the effectiveness of a brief primary care-based treatment, Clinician-Supported PTSD Coach (CS PTSD Coach) was compared with Primary Care Mental Health Integration-Treatment as Usual (PCMHI-TAU) in (1) reducing PTSD severity, (2) engaging veterans in specialty mental health care, and (3) patient satisfaction with care.DesignMulti-site randomized pragmatic clinical trial.ParticipantsA total of 234 veterans with PTSD symptoms who were not currently accessing PTSD treatment.InterventionCS PTSD Coach was designed to be implemented in Veterans Affairs PCMHI and combines mental health clinician support with the "PTSD Coach" mobile app. Four 30-min sessions encourage daily use of symptom management strategies.Main measuresPTSD severity was measured by clinician-rated interviews pre- and post-treatment (8 weeks). Self-report measures assessed PTSD, depression, and quality of life at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 16- and 24-week follow-ups, and patient satisfaction at post-treatment. Mental healthcare utilization was extracted from medical records.Key resultsClinician-rated PTSD severity did not differ by condition at post-treatment. CS PTSD Coach participants improved more on patient-reported PTSD severity at post-treatment than TAU participants (D = .28, p = .021). Coach participants who continued to have problematic PTSD symptoms at post-treatment were not more likely to engage in 2 sessions of specialty mental health treatment than TAU participants. Coach participants engaged in 74% more sessions in the intervention and reported higher treatment satisfaction than TAU participants (p < .001).ConclusionsA structured 4-session intervention designed to align with patient preferences for care resulted in more patient-reported PTSD symptom relief, greater utilization of mental health treatment, and overall treatment satisfaction than TAU, but not more clinician-rated PTSD symptom relief or engagement in specialty mental health.
| S-EPMC10022983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study assessed the relationship of both depression diagnosis and clinically significant depressive symptoms with individual cardiovascular risk factors and estimated total cardiovascular risk in primary care patients.MethodsThis study used a cross-sectional and retrospective design. Patients who had a primary care encounter between January 2016 and September 2018 and completed depression screening (PHQ-9) during the year prior to their appointment (N = 70,980) were included in this study. Data examining estimated total cardiovascular risk, specific cardiovascular risk factors, and relevant clinical diagnoses (including depression diagnosis) were extracted from the electronic health record. Patients were categorized into three groups: no depression (PHQ-9 < 10 and no depression diagnosis), controlled depression (PHQ-9 < 10 with previous depression diagnosis), and current depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10). Groups were compared on estimated total risk and specific cardiovascular risk factors (e.g., body mass index [BMI], smoking status, lipids, blood pressure, and glucose).ResultsIn adjusted analyses, patients with current depression (n = 18,267) demonstrated significantly higher 10-year and 30-year cardiovascular risk compared to patients with controlled depression (n = 33,383; 10-year: b = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44,0.74]; 30-year: OR = 1.32 [95% CI = 1.26,1.39]) and patients without depression (n = 19,330; 10-year: b = 0.55 [95% CI = 0.37,0.73]; 30-year: OR = 1.56 [95% CI = 1.48,1.65]). Except for low-density lipoprotein (LDL), patients with current depression had the greatest cardiovascular risk across specific risk factors.ConclusionsIndividuals who had a depression diagnosis and clinically significant depressive symptoms had the greatest cardiovascular risk. Pathways to prevent cardiovascular disease in those with depression might focus on treating depressive symptoms as well as specific uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors.
| S-EPMC9237849 | biostudies-literature