Assessment of Veterans Affairs Case Management Leadership.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The critical work of Veterans Affairs (VA) case managers is to assist and advocate for veterans navigating the VA and civilian health care systems, aligning services, developing integrated care plans, and supporting team-based care (Hunt & Burgo-Black, 2011). The article reviews publications regarding VA case management leadership because case managers who function as leaders are likely to better coordinate health care services for veterans. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING: VA case managers adhere to the Commission for Case Managers (CCM) scope of practice through patient advocacy, education, and resource management, while ensuring the care is safe, effective, and equitable. VA case managers are competent in veteran health care benefits, health care resources, military service, and the prevailing military culture. They work in a variety of clinical settings including more than 1,400 facilities throughout the United States. FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS: The present literature review indicates that few published articles address leadership among VA case managers. Several publications suggest that VA case managers lead, as well as manage, without indicating the extent to which they function as leaders. The literature reviewed indicates an association between unsuccessful program implementation and a lack of staff adaptability, a lack of necessary resources, a lack of ongoing involvement of senior leaders, and a fear of reprisal. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: Because of the 2018 MISSION Act, the number of veterans seeking services in the community has increased and further complicated the coordination of services for VA case managers. Understanding the leadership elements influencing successful care coordination processes is important for veterans to receive high-quality health care services.

A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits.

OBJECTIVE: Although numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit, carefully controlled, multi-center clinical trials have not been conducted. A multi-center clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of three commonly used hearing aid circuits: peak clipping, compression limiting, and wide dynamic range compression. DESIGN: Patients (N = 360) with bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss were studied using a double blind, three-period, three-treatment crossover design. The patients were fit with each of three programmable hearing aid circuits. Outcome tests were administered in the unaided condition at baseline and then after 3 mo usage of each circuit, the tests were administered in both aided and unaided conditions. The outcome test battery included tests of speech recognition, sound quality and subjective scales of hearing aid benefit, including patients' overall rank-order rating of the three circuits. RESULTS: Each hearing aid circuit improved speech recognition markedly, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech in both quiet and noisy listening conditions. In addition, a significant reduction in the problems encountered in communication was observed. Some tests suggested that the two compression hearing aids provided a better listening experience than the peak clipping hearing aid. In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the compression limiting hearing aid more frequently than the other two hearing aids. CONCLUSIONS: The three hearing aid circuits studied provide significant benefit both in quiet and in noisy listening situations. The two compression hearing aids appear to provide superior benefits compared to the linear circuit, although the differences between the hearing aids were smaller than the differences between unaided and aided conditions.