Effect of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act Scribes Trial on Emergency Department Provider Productivity and Patient Throughput Times.

BACKGROUND: To help improve access to care, section 507 of the VA MISSION (Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks) Act of 2018 mandated a 2-year trial of medical scribes in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). OBJECTIVE: The impact of scribes on provider productivity and patient throughput time in VHA emergency departments (EDs) was evaluated. METHODS: A clustered randomized trial was designed using intent-to-treat difference-in-differences analysis. The intervention period was from June 30, 2020 to July 1, 2022. The trial included six intervention and six comparison ED clinics. Two ED providers who volunteered to participate in the trial were assigned two scribes each. Scribes assisted providers with documentation and visit-related activities. The outcomes were provider productivity and patient throughput time per clinic-pay period. RESULTS: Randomization to intervention resulted in decreased provider productivity and increased patient throughput time. In adjusted regression models, randomization to scribes was associated with a decrease of 8.4 visits per full-time equivalent (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.4-4.3; p < 0.001) and 0.5 patients per day per provider (95% CI 0.8-0.3; p < 0.001). Intervention was associated with increases in length of stay of 29.1 min (95% CI 21.2-36.9 min; p < 0.001), 6.3 min in door to doctor (95% CI 2.9-9.6 min; p < 0.001), 19.5 min in door to disposition (95% CI 13.2-25.9 min; p < 0.001), and 13.7 min in doctor to disposition (95% CI 8.8-18.6 min; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Scribes were associated with decreased provider productivity and increased patient throughput time in VHA EDs. Although scribes may have contributed to improvements in other dimensions of quality, further examination of the ways in which scribes were used is advisable before widespread adoption in VHA EDs.

Veterans Crisis Line Contacts After the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Rollout.

INTRODUCTION: This study identifies changes in Veterans Crisis Line (VCL) contact volume following the 988 National Suicide Prevention Hotline rollout, and examines changes in contact volume for self-identified Veterans. METHODS: VCL's Medora database was analyzed from July 2018 to June 2023, fitting linear interrupted time series models to forecast trends after the July 2022 rollout of the 988 Suicide Prevention Hotline. Data analysis was performed from 2023 to 2024. RESULTS: After the 988 rollout, average monthly VCL contact volume increased by 5,388 contacts (8.2%). The number of contacts self-identifying as Veterans increased by 2,739 (6.2%), while the percentage of self-identifying Veteran contacts who could be linked to VHA records declined by 3.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The 988 rollout was associated with increased VCL contact volume and broad changes in the profile of users. This underscores the importance of crisis services in adapting to dynamic user needs and highlights the potential of national suicide prevention initiatives to reach diverse populations.

Telehealth Access and Substitution in the VHA.

BACKGROUND: In response to COVID-19, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) expanded telehealth availability, allowing veterans to receive care at home. We explore the extent of substitution of telehealth for in-person care among medical centers (facilities), providers, and patients. We explore the extent to which patient preferences drive telehealth utilization, and compare access to care (as measured by waiting times) for telehealth and in-person visits. METHODS: We use VHA electronic health records to identify scheduled outpatient mental health (MH) appointments from January 2019 through February 2023 focusing on care delivered by social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists. For each quarter, we compute the proportion of completed appointments that were delivered via phone or video by each facility, provider, and patient and show the changes in these proportions before, during, and after the onset of COVID-19. To explore patient preferences, we match providers of patients with high rates of telehealth utilization and examine the extent to which those providers deliver in-person care. To examine access to care, we compute waiting times for in-person, video, and phone new patient appointments. We investigate differences between urban and rural patients, and patients of different ages. KEY RESULTS: Telehealth for MH grew dramatically in the VHA after the onset of COVID-19. While some facilities provided more telehealth than others, all facilities (as of early 2023) provided some telehealth MH services. Approximately 86% of individual providers provided telehealth, with 27% scheduling MH appointments almost exclusively as telehealth appointments and 59% providing a mix. Patients exhibited more polarization, with 36% scheduling only in-person visits for almost all their MH visits and 56% of them scheduling exclusively telehealth, and only 8% of them utilizing a mix of modalities. Of those who exclusively received telehealth care, a majority of them utilized video (80%) over phone (20%). Take-up of MH among younger patients was higher relative to older patients. Urban patients used telehealth more than rural patients. Patient preferences rather than provider preferences drove utilization of patients who almost exclusively utilized telehealth. Between April 2021 and February 2023, the average difference in waiting time for in-person and video appointments was less than 1 day, with comparable appointment volumes, suggesting that the supply of and demand for in-person and video were not different enough to merit waiting longer. Telehealth was chosen over in-person more among urban and younger patients, as older and rural patients exhibited higher willingness to wait for in-person over video appointments. By contrast, appointment volumes and waiting times for phone appointments were lower across all groups, suggesting that phone may not be as substitutable for in-person visits in MH. CONCLUSIONS: We find that the VHA has made telehealth widely available, providing access to many veterans. While telehealth utilization has increased, face-to-face care persists for MH services, suggesting that one modality may not serve all purposes and preferences for care. Patient preferences drive the modality decision among those who exclusively use MH care via telehealth. For those who persist in mostly utilizing in-person care, there may be various factors influencing those preferences such as issues with limited internet connectivity, language barriers, and digital literacy, especially for older and rural patients who utilize in-person care more than those who are younger and more urban. Further investigation is required to investigate the optimal mix of modalities which may allow for potential increases in patient satisfaction, quality of care, and clinic efficiency.

Effect of a National VHA Medical Scribe Pilot on Provider Productivity, Wait Times, and Patient Satisfaction in Cardiology and Orthopedics.

BACKGROUND: Section 507 of the VA MISSION Act of 2018 mandated a 2-year pilot study of medical scribes in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), with 12 VA Medical Centers randomly selected to receive scribes in their emergency departments or high wait time specialty clinics (cardiology and orthopedics). The pilot began on June 30, 2020, and ended on July 1, 2022. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of medical scribes on provider productivity, wait times, and patient satisfaction in cardiology and orthopedics, as mandated by the MISSION Act. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial, with intent-to-treat analysis using difference-in-differences regression. PATIENTS: Veterans using 18 included VA Medical Centers (12 intervention and 6 comparison sites). INTERVENTION: Randomization into MISSION 507 medical scribe pilot. MAIN MEASURES: Provider productivity, wait times, and patient satisfaction per clinic-pay period. KEY RESULTS: Randomization into the scribe pilot was associated with increases of 25.2 relative value units (RVUs) per full-time equivalent (FTE) (p < 0.001) and 8.5 visits per FTE (p = 0.002) in cardiology and increases of 17.3 RVUs per FTE (p = 0.001) and 12.5 visits per FTE (p = 0.001) in orthopedics. We found that the scribe pilot was associated with a decrease of 8.5 days in request to appointment day wait times (p < 0.001) in orthopedics, driven by a 5.7-day decrease in appointment made to appointment day wait times (p < 0.001), and observed no change in wait times in cardiology. We also observed no declines in patient satisfaction with randomization into the scribe pilot. CONCLUSIONS: Given the potential improvements in productivity and wait times with no change in patient satisfaction, our results suggest that scribes may be a useful tool to improve access to VHA care. However, participation in the pilot by sites and providers was voluntary, which could have implications for scalability and what effects could be expected if scribes were introduced to the care process without buy-in. Cost was not considered in this analysis but is an important factor for future implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04154462.