Sickness presenteeism in healthcare workers during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: An observational cohort study.

Sickness presenteeism among healthcare workers (HCW) risks nosocomial infection, but its prevalence among HCW with COVID-19 is unknown. Contemporaneous interviews revealed a sickness presenteeism prevalence of 49.8% among 255 HCW with symptomatic COVID-19. Presenteeism prevalence did not differ among HCW with and without specific COVID-19 symptoms or direct patient care.

Antecedents to COVID-19 vaccine uptake among patients and employees in the Veterans Health Administration.

The present study sought to understand the antecedents to COVID-19 vaccination among those reporting a change in vaccine intention in order to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the United States. We employed semi-structured interviews and one focus group discussion with vaccinated and unvaccinated Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employees and Veterans at three Veterans' Affairs medical centers between January and June 2021. A subset of these participants (n=21) self-reported a change in COVID-19 vaccine intention and were selected for additional analysis. We combined thematic analysis using the 5C scale (confidence, collective responsibility, complacency, calculation, constraints) as our theoretical framework with a constant comparative method from codes based on the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. We generated 13 themes distributed across the 5C constructs that appeared to be associated with a change in COVID-19 vaccine intention. Themes included a trusted family member, friend or colleague in a healthcare field, a trusted healthcare professional, distrust of government or politics (confidence); duty to family and protection of others (collective responsibility); perceived health status and normative beliefs (complacency); perceived vaccine safety, perceived risk-benefit, and orientation towards deliberation (calculation); and ease of process (constraints). Key factors in promoting vaccine uptake included a desire to protect family; and conversations with as key factors in promoting vaccine uptake. Constructs from the 5C scale are useful in understanding intrapersonal changes in vaccine intentions over time, which may help public health practitioners improve future vaccine uptake.

In this study of the Veteran and VA employee population, we aimed to understand what factors led to a decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. As part of a quality improvement project, we interviewed individuals at three Veterans' Affairs sites in the first six months of 2021. We then used a smaller sample of 21 participants who reported a change in their intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to analyze for this study. This analysis utilizes constructs from the 5C scale, which was developed to understand the conditions required for an individual to decide to receive a vaccine (confidence, collective responsibility, complacency, calculation, constraints). The coding process revealed a number of recurring themes across the interviews falling under each of the five constructs, but concepts relating to vaccine confidence (i.e., level of trust in those developing and disseminating the vaccine) were most common, and constraints (i.e., psychological and structural barriers that stand in the way of vaccination) appeared least frequently in our interviews. We found that significant motivators to receive the vaccine included a desire to protect family and conversations with trusted clinicians, particularly mental healthcare providers. Our study was unique in using the 5Cs to understand changes in vaccine changes over time. Findings show that change in vaccine attitudes is possible even in the presence of concerns and shed light on approaches that public health providers could use to improve vaccine and booster rates.

Staff and Veteran Perspectives on Residential Treatment Programs' Responses to COVID-19: A Qualitative Study Guided by the WHO's After Action Review Framework.

Healthcare must rapidly and systematically learn from earlier COVID-19 responses to prepare for future crises. This is critical for VA's Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs (RRTPs), offering 24/7 care to Veterans for behavioral health and/or homelessness. We adapted the World Health Organization's After Action Review (AAR) to conduct semi-structured small-group discussions with staff from two RRTPs and Veterans who received RRTP care during COVID-19, to examine COVID-19's impact on these programs. Six thematic categories emerged through qualitative analysis (participant-checked and contextualized with additional input from program leadership), representing participants' recommendations including: Keep RRTPs open (especially when alternative programs are inaccessible), convey reasons for COVID-19 precautions and programming changes to Veterans, separate recovery-oriented programming from COVID-19-related information-sharing, ensure Wi-Fi availability for telehealth and communication, provide technology training during orientation, and establish safe procedures for off-site appointments. AAR is easily applicable for organizations to debrief and learn from past experiences.

Organizational Readiness for Patient-Facing Mobile Teledermatology to Care for Established Veteran Patients in the United States.

Purpose: To improve patient access to skin care, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) developed a patient-facing asynchronous mobile teledermatology application (app), which allows patients to follow up remotely with dermatologists. To understand how the app would be received in VA, we examined Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC), an important prelude to effective implementation, which includes the shared resolve and collective ability of organizational members to implement a change. Methods: We used a mixed-methods multiple case study approach to assess ORC at three VA facilities. Data derived from a site process call, surveys, and semistructured telephone interviews of VA staff, field notes, and administrative data. Results: Participants at all three facilities supported the intervention and recognized the value of using the app to increase patients' access to dermatologists, but expressed concerns largely related to disruption of the pre-existing clinical workflow. Participants at the facility most actively using the app had the highest overall ORC score and reported the most facilitators. Facility leadership support when guided by a clinical champion minimized barriers by recognizing the complexities of health care provision at specialty clinics. Discussion: While provider buy-in remained a barrier, leadership, guided by the clinical champion, played a critical role instituting implementation strategies. The strong association between the ORC survey score and the presence of facilitators and barriers suggests that the ORC survey may be a rapid, convenient, and effective tool for health care systems to identify favorable sites for wider implementation of mobile telehealth care. Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT03241589.

Perceptions and Use of Telehealth Among Mental Health, Primary, and Specialty Care Clinicians During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Clinician attitudes toward telehealth may impact utilization rates, and findings may differ based on specialty. Objective: To determine whether clinician beliefs regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with the proportion of care delivered via video, phone, and in-person across specialties. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used a voluntary, anonymous survey conducted from August to September 2021 in the Department of Veterans Affairs New England Healthcare System (VANEHS). Mental health (MH), primary care (PC), and specialty care (SC) clinicians were invited to participate. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to January 2022. Exposures: Participation in a 32-item survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were clinicians' views on relative quality of video, phone, and in-person care; factors contributing to clinicians' modality choice; telehealth challenges; and clinician modality preferences and utilization when treating new and established patients. Results: There were 866 survey respondents (estimated 64% response rate); 52 respondents reported no video or phone telehealth use in the 3 months prior to survey completion and were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 814 respondents. Respondents were divided among MH (403 respondents [49.5%]), PC (153 respondents [18.8%]), and SC (258 respondents [31.7%]). Compared with PC and SC clinicians, MH clinicians rated the quality of video care the highest (eg, compared with in-person care with masks when treating new patients: χ2 = 147.8; P < .001) and were more likely to prefer video over phone when treating both new (χ2 = 26.6; P < .001) and established (χ2 = 100.4; P < .001) patients remotely. PC and SC clinicians were more likely to rate phone care as being at least equivalent in quality to video for both new (χ2 = 26.3; P < .001) and established (χ2 = 33.5; P < .001) patients. PC and SC clinicians were also more likely to endorse challenges of video care, including patient barriers and the inability to conduct a physical examination (χ2 = 292.0; P < .001). Most PC and SC clinicians either had no preference (46 PC respondents [36.2%]; 59 SC respondents [28.4%]) or preferred phone (36 PC respondents [28.3%]; 67 SC respondents [32.2%]) for remote care of established patients. Findings aligned with utilization rates within VANEHS, with MH clinicians conducting significantly more of their encounters via video (36 734 encounters [40.3%]) than PC (3201 encounters [3.9%]) and SC (1157 encounters [4.9%]) clinicians. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that clinician attitudes regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with utilization rates. Moving forward, clinician use of telehealth may be impacted by additional data regarding the relative effectiveness of modalities as well as improvements in video telehealth workflows.

Applying after action review to examine residential treatment programs' responses to COVID-19.

Resurgences of COVID-19 cases are a grave public health concern. Hence, there is an urgent need for health care systems to rapidly and systematically learn from their responses to earlier waves of COVID-19. To meet this need, this article delineates how we adapted the World Health Organization's After Action Review (AAR) framework to use within our health care system of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. An AAR is a structured, methodical evaluation of actions taken in response to an event (e.g., recent waves of COVID-19). It delivers an actionable report regarding (i) what was expected, (ii) what actually happened, (iii) what went well, and (iv) what could have been done differently, and thus what changes are needed for future situations. We share as an example our examination of Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs in Massachusetts (a COVID-19 hotspot). Our work can be further adapted, beyond residential treatment, as a consistent framework for reviewing COVID-19 responses across multiple health care programs. This will identify both standardized and tailored preparations that the programs can make for future waves of the pandemic. Given the expected resurgences of COVID-19 cases, the time to apply AAR is now.

Attitudes and Intentions of US Veterans Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination.

Importance: Compared with the general population, veterans are at high risk for COVID-19 and have a complex relationship with the government. This potentially affects their attitudes toward receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Objective: To assess veterans' attitudes toward and intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional web-based survey study used data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients' Veterans Insight Panel, fielded between March 12 and 28, 2021. Of 3420 veterans who were sent a link to complete a 58-item web-based survey, 1178 veterans (34%) completed the survey. Data were analyzed from April 1 to August 25, 2021. Exposures: Veterans eligible for COVID-19 vaccines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were veterans' experiences with COVID-19, vaccination status and intention groups, reasons for receiving or not receiving a vaccine, self-reported health status, and trusted and preferred sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines. Reasons for not getting vaccinated were classified into categories of vaccine deliberation, dissent, distrust, indifference, skepticism, and policy and processes. Results: Among 1178 respondents, 974 (83%) were men, 130 (11%) were women, and 141 (12%) were transgender or nonbinary; 58 respondents (5%) were Black, 54 veterans (5%) were Hispanic or Latino, and 987 veterans (84%) were non-Hispanic White. The mean (SD) age of respondents was 66.7 (10.1) years. A total of 817 respondents (71%) self-reported being vaccinated against COVID-19. Of 339 respondents (29%) who were not vaccinated, those unsure of getting vaccinated were more likely to report fair or poor overall health (32 respondents [43%]) and mental health (33 respondents [44%]) than other nonvaccinated groups (overall health: range, 20%-32%; mental health: range, 18%-40%). Top reasons for not being vaccinated were skepticism (120 respondents [36%] were concerned about side effects; 65 respondents [20%] preferred using few medications; 63 respondents [19%] preferred gaining natural immunity), deliberation (74 respondents [22%] preferred to wait because vaccine is new), and distrust (61 respondents [18%] did not trust the health care system). Among respondents who were vaccinated, preventing oneself from getting sick (462 respondents [57%]) and contributing to the end of the COVID-19 pandemic (453 respondents [56%]) were top reasons for getting vaccinated. All veterans reported the VA as 1 of their top trusted sources of information. The proportion of respondents trusting their VA health care practitioner as a source of vaccine information was higher among those unsure about vaccination compared with those who indicated they would definitely not or probably not get vaccinated (18 respondents [26%] vs 15 respondents [15%]). There were no significant associations between vaccine intention groups and age (χ24 = 5.90; P = .21) or gender (χ22 = 3.99; P = .14). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide information needed to develop trusted messages used in conversations between VA health care practitioners and veterans addressing specific vaccine hesitancy reasons, as well as those in worse health. Conversations need to emphasize societal reasons for getting vaccinated and benefits to one's own health.

Vaccine hesitancy as an opportunity for engagement: A rapid qualitative study of patients and employees in the U.S. Veterans Affairs healthcare system.

Although COVID-19 vaccines have been available to many U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system employees and Veteran patients since early 2021, vaccine receipt data indicates some groups are not receiving them. Our objective was to conduct a rapid qualitative assessment of Veterans' and VA employees' views on COVID-19 vaccination to inform clinical leaders' ongoing efforts to increase vaccine uptake across the VA. We employed semi-structured interviews and a focus group involving employees and Veterans as part of a quality improvement project between January and June 2021 at three VA medical centers. Thirty-one employees and 27 Veterans participated in semi-structured interviews; 5 Veterans from a national stakeholder organization participated in a focus group. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis, involving an a priori coding framework comprised of four domains with subcodes under each: contextual influences, barriers and facilitators, vaccine-specific issues, and VA/military experiences. We then classified initial codes into five categories of hesitancy: vaccine deliberation, dissent, distrust, indifference and skepticism. A subset of Veterans (n = 14) and employees (n = 8) identified as vaccine hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy categories were represented by subcodes of religion, culture, gender or socio-economic factors, perceptions of politics and policies, role of healthcare providers, and historical influences; (contextual influences); knowledge or awareness of vaccines, perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, and beliefs and attitudes about health and illness (barriers and facilitators); vaccine development process (vaccine-specific issues) and military experiences (VA/military factors). Facilitators involved talking with trusted others, ease of vaccine access, and perceptions of family and societal benefits of vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy is multi-faceted and likely requires multiple strategies for engaging in conversations to address Veteran and VA employee concerns. Messages should involve patient-centered communication strategies delivered by trusted healthcare providers and peers and should focus on addressing expected benefits for family, friends, and society.

Provider Perceptions of Virtual Care During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Multispecialty Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in virtual care (VC) across outpatient specialties, but little is known regarding provider acceptance of VC. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess provider perceptions of the quality, efficiency, and challenges of VC versus in-person care with masks. DESIGN: This was a voluntary survey. PARTICIPANTS: Mental health (MH), primary care, medical specialty, and surgical specialty providers across the 8 VA New England Healthcare System medical centers. MEASURES: Provider ratings of: (1) quality and efficiency of VC (phone and video telehealth) compared with in-person care with masks; (2) challenges of VC; and (3) percentage of patients that providers are comfortable seeing via VC in the future. RESULTS: The sample included 998 respondents (49.8% MH, 20.6% primary care, 20.4% medical specialty, 9.1% surgical specialty; 61% response rate). Most providers rated VC as equivalent to or higher in quality and efficiency compared with in-person care with masks. Quality ratings were significantly higher for video versus phone (χ2=61.4, P<0.0001), but efficiency ratings did not differ significantly. Ratings varied across specialties (highest in MH, lowest in SS; all χ2s>24.1, Ps<0.001). Inability to conduct a physical examination and patient technical difficulties were significant challenges. MH providers were comfortable seeing a larger proportion of patients virtually compared with the other specialties (all χ2s>12.2, Ps<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Broad provider support for VC was stratified across specialties, with the highest ratings in MH and lowest ratings in SS. Findings will inform the improvement of VC processes and the planning of health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.