Identifying Barriers and Facilitators to Veterans Affairs Whole Health Integration Using the Updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

BACKGROUND: Veterans Affairs (VA) implemented the Veteran-centered Whole Health System initiative across VA sites with approaches to implementation varying by site. PURPOSE: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we aimed to synthesize systemic barriers and facilitators to Veteran use with the initiative. Relevance to healthcare quality, systematic comparison of implementation procedures across a national healthcare system provides a comprehensive portrait of strengths and opportunities for improvement. METHODS: Advanced fellows from 11 VA Quality Scholars sites performed the initial data collection, and the final report includes CFIR-organized results from six sites. RESULTS: Key innovation findings included cost, complexity, offerings, and accessibility. Inner setting barriers and facilitators included relational connections and communication, compatibility, structure and resources, learning centeredness, and information and knowledge access. Finally, results regarding individuals included innovation deliverers, implementation leaders and team, and individual capability, opportunity, and motivation to implement and deliver whole health care. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Examination of barriers and facilitators suggest that Whole Health coaches are key components of implementation and help to facilitate communication, relationship building, and knowledge access for Veterans and VA employees. Continuous evaluation and improvement of implementation procedures at each site is also recommended.

The Association of Organizational Readiness With Lung Cancer Screening Utilization.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening is widely underutilized. Organizational factors, such as readiness for change and belief in the value of change (change valence), may contribute to underutilization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between healthcare organizations' preparedness and lung cancer screening utilization. METHODS: Investigators cross-sectionally surveyed clinicians, staff, and leaders at10 Veterans Affairs from November 2018 to February 2021 to assess organizational readiness to implement change. In 2022, investigators used simple and multivariable linear regression to evaluate the associations between facility-level organizational readiness to implement change and change valence with lung cancer screening utilization. Organizational readiness to implement change and change valence were calculated from individual surveys. The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible Veterans screened using low-dose computed tomography. Secondary analyses assessed scores by healthcare role. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 27.4% (n=1,049), with 956 complete surveys analyzed: median age of 49 years, 70.3% female, 67.6% White, 34.6% clinicians, 61.1% staff, and 4.3% leaders. For each 1-point increase in median organizational readiness to implement change and change valence, there was an associated 8.4-percentage point (95% CI=0.2, 16.6) and a 6.3-percentage point increase in utilization (95% CI= -3.9, 16.5), respectively. Higher clinician and staff median scores were associated with increased utilization, whereas leader scores were associated with decreased utilization after adjusting for other roles. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare organizations with higher readiness and change valence utilized more lung cancer screening. These results are hypothesis generating. Future interventions to increase organizations' preparedness, especially among clinicians and staff, may increase lung cancer screening utilization.

Developing the VA Geriatric Scholars Programs' Clinical Dashboards Using the PDSA Framework for Quality Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Involving clinician end users in the development process of clinical dashboards is important to ensure that user needs are adequately met prior to releasing the dashboard for use. The challenge with following this approach is that clinician end users can undergo periodic turnover, meaning, the clinicians that played a role in the initial development process may not be the same individuals that use the dashboard in future. OBJECTIVES: Here, we summarize our Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA)-guided clinical dashboard development process for the VA Geriatric Scholars Program (GSP) and the value of continuous, iterative development. We summarize dashboard adaptations that resulted from two PDSA cycles of improvement for the potentially inappropriate medication dashboard (PIMD), one of many Geriatric Scholars clinical dashboards. We also present the evaluative performance of the PIMD. METHODS: Evaluation of the PIMD was performed using the system usability scale (SUS) and through review of user interaction logs. Routine end users that were Geriatric Scholars and had evidence of 5 or more dashboard views were invited to complete an electronic form that contained the 10-item SUS. RESULTS: The proportion of Geriatric Scholars that utilized the PIMD increased for each iterative dashboard version that was produced as a byproduct from feedback (31.0% in 2017 to 60.2% in 2019). The overall usability of the PIMD among routine users was found to be above average (SUS score: 75.2 [95% CI 70.5-79.8]) in comparison to the recommended standard of acceptability (SUS score: 68) CONCLUSION: The solicitation of feedback during dashboard orientations led to iterative adaptations of the PIMD that broadened its intended use. The presented PDSA-guided process to clinical dashboard development for the VA GSP can serve as a valuable framework for development teams seeking to produce well-adopted and usable health information technology (IT) innovations.

A Multi-Site Evaluation of A National Employee Wellness Initiative at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Background: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) seeks to transform its health care delivery from disease-centered, episodic care to a holistic and patient-centered model known as the Whole Health System (WHS) of care. Employee engagement and buy-in are crucial to this cultural transformation. The VA aspires to provide employees with opportunities to experience whole health in their personal and professional lives through a national Employee Whole Health (EWH) program. Although there are national recommendations, different local facilities may have unique strategies and challenges as they implement this program. Objective: This study aimed to conduct a program evaluation of EWH at three different VA facilities across the United States in order to identify facilitators and barriers to the implementation of EWH. Methods: The team used the RE-AIM framework to develop an interview guide to assess various domains of implementation. Quantitative data on whole health offerings at each site were gauged using a national employee education platform. Standardized employee-related metrics at each site were assessed using the annual, national VA employee survey. Results: EWH has had variable implementation at the three sites. Sites noted main facilitators as employee interest as well as available skills and expertise for delivering complementary and integrative care to employees. Limited staffing for EWH and a lack of dedicated employee time were cited as barriers. The infrastructure to perform local program evaluations to demonstrate effectiveness and impact were missing. Conclusion: Employee engagement in whole health activities has the potential to support the VA's mission to transform its health care delivery model. Currently, the use of EWH and its potential impact are difficult to discern based on available information. Local sites need guidance to conduct program evaluations and find creative solutions to enhance employee participation. A robust measurement system to demonstrate effectiveness is paramount to ensure the success of this initiative.

Association of Rurality With Annual Repeat Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer causes the largest number of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Lung cancer incidence rates, mortality rates, and rates of advanced stage disease are higher among those who live in rural areas. Known disparities in lung cancer outcomes between rural and nonrural populations may be in part because of barriers faced by rural populations. The authors tested the hypothesis that among Veterans who receive initial lung cancer screening, rural Veterans would be less likely to complete annual repeat screening than nonrural Veterans. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 10 Veterans Affairs medical centers from 2015 to 2019. Rural and nonrural Veterans undergoing lung cancer screening were identified. Rural status was defined using the rural-urban commuting area codes. The primary outcome was annual repeat lung cancer screening in the 9- to 15-month window (primary analysis) and 31-day to 18-month window (sensitivity analysis) after the first documented lung cancer screening. To examine rurality as a predictor of annual repeat lung cancer screening, multivariable logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: In the final analytic sample of 11,402 Veterans, annual repeat lung cancer screening occurred in 27.7% of rural Veterans (641 of 2,316) and 31.8% of nonrural Veterans (2,891 of 9,086) (adjusted odds ratio: 0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.03). Similar results were seen in the sensitivity analysis, with 41.6% of rural Veterans (963 of 2,316) versus 45.2% of nonrural Veterans (4,110 of 9,086) (adjusted odds ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.04) having annual repeat screening in the expanded 31-day to 18-month window. CONCLUSIONS: Among a national cohort of Veterans, rural residence was associated with numerically lower odds of annual repeat lung cancer screening than nonrural residence. Continued, intentional outreach efforts to increase annual repeat lung cancer screening among rural Veterans may offer an opportunity to decrease deaths from lung cancer.

Operationalising outpatient antimicrobial stewardship to reduce system-wide antibiotics for acute bronchitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are not recommended for treatment of acute uncomplicated bronchitis (AUB), but are often prescribed (85% of AUB visits within the Veterans Affairs nationally). This quality improvement project aimed to decrease antibiotic prescribing for AUB in community-based outpatient centres from 65% to <32% by April 2020. METHODS: From January to December 2018, community-based outpatient clinics' 6 months' average of prescribed antibiotics for AUB and upper respiratory infections was 63% (667 of 1054) and 64.6% (314 of 486) when reviewing the last 6 months. Seven plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles were implemented by an interprofessional antimicrobial stewardship team between January 2019 and March 2020. Balancing measures were a return patient phone call or visit within 4 weeks for the same complaint. Χ2 tests and statistical process control charts using Western Electric rules were used to analyse intervention data. RESULTS: The AUB antibiotic prescribing rate decreased from 64.6% (314 of 486) in the 6 months prior to the intervention to 36.8% (154 of 418) in the final 6 months of the intervention. No change was seen in balancing measures. The largest reduction in antibiotic prescribing was seen after implementation of PDSA 6 in which 14 high prescribers were identified and targeted for individualised reviews of encounters of patients with AUB with an antimicrobial steward. CONCLUSIONS: Operational implementation of successful stewardship interventions is challenging and differs from the traditional implementation study environment. As a nascent outpatient stewardship programme with limited resources and no additional intervention funding, we successfully reduced antibiotic prescribing from 64.6% to 36.8%, a reduction of 43% from baseline. The most success was seen with targeted education of high prescribers.

Protocol to evaluate an enterprise-wide initiative to increase access to lung cancer screening in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Affairs Partnership to increase Access to Lung Screening (VA-PALS) is an enterprise-wide initiative to implement lung cancer screening programs at VA medical centers (VAMCs). VA-PALS will be using implementation strategies that include program navigators to coordinate screening activities, trainings for navigators and radiologists, an open-source software management system, tools to standardize low-dose computed tomography image quality, and access to a support network. VAMCs can utilize strategies according to their local needs. In this protocol, we describe the planned program evaluation for the initial 10 VAMCs participating in VA-PALS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The implementation of programs will be evaluated using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to ensure broad contextual guidance. Program evaluation measures have been developed using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework. Adaptations of screening processes will be assessed using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence Based Interventions. Measures collected will reflect the inner settings, estimate and describe the population reached, adoption by providers, implementation of the programs, report clinical outcomes and maintenance of programs. Analyses will include descriptive statistics and regression to evaluate predictors and assess implementation over time. DISCUSSION: This theory-based protocol will evaluate the implementation of lung cancer screening programs across the Veterans Health Administration using scientific frameworks. The findings will inform plans to expand the VA-PALS initiative beyond the original sites and can guide implementation of lung cancer screening programs more broadly.

Organizational Readiness for Lung Cancer Screening: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer has the highest cancer-related mortality in the United States and among Veterans. Screening of high-risk individuals with low-dose CT (LDCT) can improve survival through detection of early-stage lung cancer. Organizational factors that aid or impede implementation of this evidence-based practice in diverse populations are not well described. We evaluated organizational readiness for change and change valence (belief that change is beneficial and valuable) for implementation of LDCT screening. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of providers, staff, and administrators in radiology and primary care at a single Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Survey measures included Shea's validated Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale and Shea's 10 items to assess change valence. ORIC and change valence were scored on a scale from 1 to 7 (higher scores representing higher readiness for change or valence). Multivariable linear regressions were conducted to determine predictors of ORIC and change valence. RESULTS: Of 523 employees contacted, 282 completed survey items (53.9% overall response rate). Higher ORIC scores were associated with radiology versus primary care (mean 5.48, SD 1.42 versus 5.07, SD 1.22, ß = 0.37, P = .039). Self-identified leaders in lung cancer screening had both higher ORIC (5.56, SD 1.39 versus 5.11, SD 1.26, ß = 0.43, P = .050) and change valence scores (5.89, SD 1.21 versus 5.36, SD 1.19, ß = 0.51, P = .012). DISCUSSION: Radiology health professionals have higher levels of readiness for change for implementation of LDCT screening than those in primary care. Understanding health professionals' behavioral determinants for change can inform future lung cancer screening implementation strategies.

Association of a Lung Screening Program Coordinator With Adherence to Annual CT Lung Screening at a Large Academic Institution.

BACKGROUND: Detection of early-stage lung cancer improves during subsequent rounds of screening with low-dose CT and potentially leads to saving lives with curative treatment. Therefore, adherence to annual lung screening is important. We hypothesized that adherence to annual screening would increase after hiring of a dedicated program coordinator. METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent lung screening at our academic institution between January 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018. Patients with baseline lung screening examinations performed between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2016, with Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System 1 or 2 scores and a 12-month follow-up recommendation were included. We tracked patient adherence to annual follow-up lung screening over time (before and after hiring of a program coordinator) and conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients nonadherent to annual follow-up to elicit quantitative and qualitative feedback. RESULTS: Of the 319 patients who completed baseline lung screening with normal results, 189 (59%) were adherent to annual follow-up recommendations and 130 (41%) were nonadherent. Patient adherence varied over time: 21.7% adherence (10 of 46) before hiring a program coordinator and 65.6% adherence (179 of 273) after the program coordinator's hire date. Patients reported the following reasons for nonadherence to annual lung screening: lack of transportation, financial cost, lack of communication by physicians, and lack of current symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to annual lung screening after normal baseline studies increased significantly over time. Hiring a full-time program coordinator was likely associated with this increased in adherence.

VA Quality Scholars Quality Improvement Coach Model to Facilitate Learning and Success.

Despite the increase in quality improvement (QI) education both in practice and in health professions' education, gaps exist in the usefulness and success of QI projects. Barriers to successful QI are a result of delays in implementation, teamwork issues, and lack of QI knowledge. These barriers can be addressed using a QI Coach. A QI Coach is an expert in QI principles who has excellent communication and collaboration skills, and is experienced with organizational policies. The purpose of this article is to (a) describe the VA Quality Scholars (VAQS) QI Coach Model that includes the role of a coach and effective coaching strategies and (b) discuss lessons learned from the application of the VAQS QI Coach Model. The QI Coach facilitates success by providing novice QI teams with practical skills, encouragement, and support.

Communication About the Probability of Cancer in Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules.

Importance: Clinical guidelines recommend that clinicians estimate the probability of malignancy for patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs) larger than 8 mm. Adherence to these guidelines is unknown. Objectives: To determine whether clinicians document the probability of malignancy in high-risk IPNs and to compare these quantitative or qualitative predictions with the validated Mayo Clinic Model. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-institution, retrospective cohort study of patients from a tertiary care Department of Veterans Affairs hospital from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015. Cohort 1 included 291 veterans undergoing surgical resection of known or suspected lung cancer from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2015. Cohort 2 included a random sample of 239 veterans undergoing inpatient or outpatient pulmonary evaluation of IPNs at the hospital from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2012. Exposures: Clinician documentation of the quantitative or qualitative probability of malignancy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Documentation from pulmonary and/or thoracic surgery clinicians as well as information from multidisciplinary tumor board presentations was reviewed. Any documented quantitative or qualitative predictions of malignancy were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics. Clinicians' predictions were compared with risk estimates from the Mayo Clinic Model. Results: Of 291 patients in cohort 1, 282 (96.9%) were men; mean (SD) age was 64.6 (9.0) years. Of 239 patients in cohort 2, 233 (97.5%) were men; mean (SD) age was 65.5 (10.8) years. Cancer prevalence was 258 of 291 cases (88.7%) in cohort 1 and 110 of 225 patients with a definitive diagnosis (48.9%) in cohort 2. Only 13 patients (4.5%) in cohort 1 and 3 (1.3%) in cohort 2 had a documented quantitative prediction of malignancy prior to tissue diagnosis. Of the remaining patients, 217 of 278 (78.1%) in cohort 1 and 149 of 236 (63.1%) in cohort 2 had qualitative statements of cancer risk. In cohort 2, 23 of 79 patients (29.1%) without any documented malignancy risk statements had a final diagnosis of cancer. Qualitative risk statements were distributed among 32 broad categories. The most frequently used statements aligned well with Mayo Clinic Model predictions for cohort 1 compared with cohort 2. The median Mayo Clinic Model-predicted probability of cancer was 68.7% (range, 2.4%-100.0%). Qualitative risk statements roughly aligned with Mayo predictions. Conclusions and Relevance: Clinicians rarely provide quantitative documentation of cancer probability for high-risk IPNs, even among patients drawn from a broad range of cancer probabilities. Qualitative statements of cancer risk in current practice are imprecise and highly variable. A standard scale that correlates with predicted cancer risk for IPNs should be used to communicate with patients and other clinicians.

Timeliness of Care and Lung Cancer Tumor-Stage Progression: How Long Can We Wait?

BACKGROUND: Timely care of lung cancer is presumed critical, yet clear evidence of stage progression with delays in care is lacking. We investigated the reasons for delays in treatment and the impact these delays have on tumor-stage progression. METHODS: We queried our retrospective database of 265 veterans who underwent cancer resection from 2005 to 2015. We extracted time intervals between nodule identification, diagnosis, and surgical resection; changes in nodule radiographic size over time; final pathologic staging; and reasons for delays in care. Pearson's correlation and Fisher's exact test were used to compare cancer growth and stage by time to treatment. RESULTS: Median time from referral to surgical evaluation was 11 days (interquartile range, 8 to 17). Median time from identification to therapeutic resection was 98 days (interquartile range, 66 to 139), and from diagnosis to resection, 53 days (interquartile range, 35 to 77). Sixty-eight patients (26%) were diagnosed at resection; the remainder had preoperative tissue diagnoses. No significant correlation existed between tumor growth and time between nodule identification and resection, or between tumor growth and time between diagnosis and resection. Among 197 patients with preoperative diagnoses, 42% (83) had intervals longer than 60 days between diagnosis and resection. Most common reasons for delay were cardiac clearance, staging, and smoking cessation. Larger nodules had fewer days between identification and resection (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation, staging, and smoking cessation drive resection delays. The lack of association between tumor growth and time to treatment suggests other clinical or biological factors, not time alone, underlie growth risk. Until these factors are identified, delays to diagnosis and treatment should be minimized.

Veterans Affairs Geriatric Scholars Program: Enhancing Existing Primary Care Clinician Skills in Caring for Older Veterans.

The Veterans Affairs Geriatric Scholars Program (GSP) is a continuing professional development program to integrate geriatrics into the clinical practices of primary care providers and select associated health professions that support primary care teams. GSP uses a blended program educational format, and the minimal requirements are to attend an intensive course in geriatrics, participate in an interactive workshop on quality improvement (QI), and initiate a local QI project to demonstrate application of new knowledge to benefit older veterans. Using a retrospective post/pre survey design, the effect of GSP on clinical practices and behaviors and variation of that effect on clinicians working in rural and nonrural settings were evaluated. Significant improvement was found in the frequency of using evidence-based brief standardized assessments, clinical decision-making, and standards of care. Significant subgroup differences were observed in peer-to-peer information sharing between rural and nonrural clinicians. Overall, 77% of the sample reported greater job satisfaction after participating in GSP. The program is a successful model for advancing postgraduate education in geriatrics and a model that might be replicated to increase access to quality health care, particularly in rural areas.

Poor survival for veterans with pathologic stage I non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic stage (pStage) IA and IB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has a median survival time of 119 and 81 months, respectively. We describe the outcomes of veterans with pStage I NSCLC. METHODS: A retrospective review of 78 patients with pStage I NSCLC who underwent cancer resection was performed at the Tennessee Valley Veterans Affairs Hospital between 2005 and 2010. All-cause 30-day, 90-day, and overall mortality were determined. Survival was assessed with the Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: There were 55 (71%) pStage IA and 23 (29%) IB patients. Thirty- and 90-day mortality was 3.8% (3 of 78) and 6.4% (5 of 78), respectively. Median survival was 59 and 28 months for pStage 1A and 1B, respectively. Postoperative events were associated with impaired survival on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.26, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Veterans with pStage I NSCLC at our institution have poorer survival than the general population. More research is needed to determine the etiology of this disparity.

The state of molecular biomarkers for the early detection of lung cancer.

Using biomarkers to select the most at-risk population, to detect the disease while measurable and yet not clinically apparent has been the goal of many investigations. Recent advances in molecular strategies and analytic platforms, including genomics, epigenomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, have identified increasing numbers of potential biomarkers in the blood, urine, exhaled breath condensate, bronchial specimens, saliva, and sputum, but none have yet moved to the clinical setting. Therefore, there is a recognized gap between the promise and the product delivery in the cancer biomarker field. In this review, we define clinical contexts where risk and diagnostic biomarkers may have use in the management of lung cancer, identify the most relevant candidate biomarkers of early detection, provide their state of development, and finally discuss critical aspects of study design in molecular biomarkers for early detection of lung cancer.

Added value of a serum proteomic signature in the diagnostic evaluation of lung nodules.

BACKGROUND: Current management of lung nodules is complicated by nontherapeutic resections and missed chances for cure. We hypothesized that a serum proteomic signature may add diagnostic information beyond that provided by combined clinical and radiographic data. METHODS: Cohort A included 265 and cohort B 114 patients. Using multivariable logistic regression analysis we calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and quantified the added value of a previously described serum proteomic signature beyond clinical and radiographic risk factors for predicting lung cancer using the integration discrimination improvement (IDI) index. RESULTS: The average computed tomography (CT) measured nodule size in cohorts A and B was 37.83 versus 23.15 mm among patients with lung cancer and 15.82 versus 17.18 mm among those without, respectively. In cohort A, the AUC increased from 0.68 to 0.86 after adding chest CT imaging variables to the clinical results, but the proteomic signature did not provide meaningful added value. In contrast, in cohort B, the AUC improved from 0.46 with clinical data alone to 0.61 when combined with chest CT imaging data and to 0.69 after adding the proteomic signature (IDI of 20% P = 0.0003). In addition, in a subgroup of 100 nodules between 5 and 20 mm in diameter, the proteomic signature added value with an IDI of 15% (P ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that this serum proteomic biomarker signature may add value to the clinical and chest CT evaluation of indeterminate lung nodules. IMPACT: This study suggests a possible role of a blood biomarker in the evaluation of indeterminate lung nodules.

Mastering improvement science skills in the new era of quality and safety: the Veterans Affairs National Quality Scholars Program.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Healthcare professionals need a new skill set to ensure the success of quality improvement in healthcare. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiated the VA National Quality Scholars fellowship in 1998; its mission is to improve the quality of care, ensure safety, accelerate healthcare re-design, and advance the improvement science by educating the next generation of leaders in quality and safety. We describe the critical need for leadership in quality and safety and interprofessional education, illustrate the curriculum, provide lessons learned by fellows, summarize key lessons learned from the implementation of an interprofessional education approach, and present most recent accomplishments. METHODS: Narrative review. RESULTS: As of 2011, 106 program alumni are embedded in the health care delivery system across the United States. Since 2009, when nurse fellows joined the program, of the first nine graduating interdisciplinary fellows, the tailored curriculum has resulted in five advanced academic degrees, 42 projects, 29 teaching activities, 44 presentations, 36 publications, six grants funded or submitted, and two awards. CONCLUSIONS: The VA National Quality Scholars program continues to nurture and develop leaders for the new millennium focusing on interprofessional education. The nations' health care systems need strong interdisciplinary leaders in advanced quality improvement science who are dedicated to improving the overall quality of health and health care.