Implementing evidence-based practices to improve primary care for high-risk patients: study protocol for the VA high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) type III effectiveness-implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with significant multimorbidity and other factors that make healthcare challenging to access and coordinate are at high risk for poor health outcomes. Although most (93%) of Veterans' Health Administration (VHA) patients at high risk for hospitalization or death ("high-risk Veterans") are primarily managed by primary care teams, few of these teams have implemented evidence-based practices (EBPs) known to improve outcomes for the high-risk patient population's complex healthcare issues. Effective implementation strategies could increase adoption of these EBPs in primary care; however, the most effective implementation strategies to increase evidence-based care for high-risk patients are unknown. The high-RIsk VETerans (RIVET) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) will compare two variants of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) strategies to implement two distinct EBPs for high-risk Veterans: individual coaching (EBQI-IC; tailored training with individual implementation sites to meet site-specific needs) versus learning collaborative (EBQI-LC; implementation sites trained in groups to encourage collaboration among sites). One EBP, Comprehensive Assessment and Care Planning (CACP), guides teams in addressing patients' cognitive, functional, and social needs through a comprehensive care plan. The other EBP, Medication Adherence Assessment (MAA), addresses common challenges to medication adherence using a patient-centered approach. METHODS: We will recruit and randomize 16 sites to either EBQI-IC or EBQI-LC to implement one of the EBPs, chosen by the site. Each site will have a site champion (front-line staff) who will participate in 18 months of EBQI facilitation. ANALYSIS: We will use a mixed-methods type 3 hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation trial to test EBQI-IC versus EBQI-LC versus usual care using a Concurrent Stepped Wedge design. We will use the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) framework to compare and evaluate Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and costs. We will then assess the maintenance/sustainment and spread of both EBPs in primary care after the 18-month implementation period. Our primary outcome will be Reach, measured by the percentage of eligible high-risk patients who received the EBP. DISCUSSION: Our study will identify which implementation strategy is most effective overall, and under various contexts, accounting for unique barriers, facilitators, EBP characteristics, and adaptations. Ultimately this study will identify ways for primary care clinics and teams to choose implementation strategies that can improve care and outcomes for patients with complex healthcare needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05050643. Registered September 9th, 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05050643 PROTOCOL VERSION: This protocol is Version 1.0 which was created on 6/3/2020.

The association between population health management tools and clinician burnout in the United States VA primary care patient-centered medical home.

BACKGROUND: Technological burden and medical complexity are significant drivers of clinician burnout. Electronic health record(EHR)-based population health management tools can be used to identify high-risk patient populations and implement prophylactic health practices. Their impact on clinician burnout, however, is not well understood. Our objective was to assess the relationship between ratings of EHR-based population health management tools and clinician burnout. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of 2018 national Veterans Health Administration(VA) primary care personnel survey, administered as an online survey to all VA primary care personnel (n = 4257, response rate = 17.7%), using bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions. Our analytical sample included providers (medical doctors, nurse practitioners, physicians' assistants) and nurses (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses). The outcomes included two items measuring high burnout. Primary predictors included importance ratings of 10 population health management tools (eg. VA risk prediction algorithm, recent hospitalizations and emergency department visits, etc.). RESULTS: High ratings of 9 tools were associated with lower odds of high burnout, independent of covariates including VA tenure, team role, gender, ethnicity, staffing, and training. For example, clinicians who rated the risk prediction algorithm as important were less likely to report high burnout levels than those who did not use or did not know about the tool (OR 0.73; CI 0.61-0.87), and they were less likely to report frequent burnout (once per week or more) (OR 0.71; CI 0.60-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Burned-out clinicians may not consider the EHR-based tools important and may not be using them to perform care management. Tools that create additional technological burden may need adaptation to become more accessible, more intuitive, and less burdensome to use. Finding ways to improve the use of tools that streamline the work of population health management and/or result in less workload due to patients with poorly managed chronic conditions may alleviate burnout. More research is needed to understand the causal directional of the association between burnout and ratings of population health management tools.

Factors Associated With Use of the Preventive Health Inventory in US Veterans.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant declines in the quality of preventive and chronic disease care. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) used the Preventive Health Inventory (PHI), a multicomponent care management intervention, to catch up on care disrupted by the pandemic. Objective: To identify key factors associated with PHI use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of veterans receiving primary care used administrative data from national VHA primary care clinics for February 1, 2021, through February 1, 2022. Exposure: Patient PHI receipt. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were patient, practitioner, and clinic factors associated with PHI receipt. Binomial generalized linear models with fixed effects for clinic were used to analyze factors associated with receipt of PHI. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator procedures were used for variable selection. Results: A total of 4 358 038 veterans (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [16.0] years; 90% male; 76% non-Hispanic White) formed the study cohort, of whom 389 757 (9%) received the PHI. Veterans who received the PHI had higher mean Care Assessment Need (CAN) scores, which indicate the likelihood of hospitalization or death within 1 year (mean [SD], 51.9 [28.6] vs 47.2 [28.6]; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.16). They were also more likely to live in urban areas (77% vs 64%; SMD, 0.28) and have a shorter drive distance to primary care (mean [SD], 13.2 [12.4] vs 15.7 [14.6] miles; SMD, 0.19). The mean outpatient use was higher among PHI recipients compared with non-PHI recipients (mean [SD], 18.4 [27.8] vs 15.1 [24.1] visits; SMD, -0.13). In addition, veterans with primary care practitioners with higher caseloads were more likely to receive the PHI (mean [SD], 778 [231] vs 744 [249] patients; SMD, -0.14), and they were more likely to be seen at larger clinics (mean [SD], 9670 [6876] vs 8786 [6892] patients; SMD, -0.13). Prior outpatient use and CAN score were associated with PHI receipt in the final model. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of the VHA's PHI, patients with higher CAN scores and more outpatient use in the previous year were more likely to receive the PHI. This study identifies potential intervention points to improve care coordination for veterans.

Burnout, employee engagement, and changing organizational contexts in VA primary care during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic involved a rapid change to the working conditions of all healthcare workers (HCW), including those in primary care. Organizational responses to the pandemic, including a shift to virtual care, changes in staffing, and reassignments to testing-related work, may have shifted more burden to these HCWs, increasing their burnout and turnover intent, despite their engagement to their organization. Our objectives were (1) to examine changes in burnout and intent to leave rates in VA primary care from 2017-2020 (before and during the pandemic), and (2) to analyze how individual protective factors and organizational context affected burnout and turnover intent among VA primary care HCWs during the early months of the pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed individual- and healthcare system-level data from 19,894 primary care HCWs in 139 healthcare systems in 2020. We modeled potential relationships between individual-level burnout and turnover intent as outcomes, and individual-level employee engagement, perceptions of workload, leadership, and workgroups. At healthcare system-level, we assessed prior-year levels of burnout and turnover intent, COVID-19 burden (number of tests and deaths), and the extent of virtual care use as potential determinants. We conducted multivariable analyses using logistic regression with standard errors clustered by healthcare system controlled for individual-level demographics and healthcare system complexity. RESULTS: In 2020, 37% of primary care HCWs reported burnout, and 31% reported turnover intent. Highly engaged employees were less burned out (OR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.52-0.63) and had lower turnover intent (OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.57-0.68). Pre-pandemic healthcare system-level burnout was a major predictor of individual-level pandemic burnout (p = 0.014). Perceptions of reasonable workload, trustworthy leadership, and strong workgroups were also related to lower burnout and turnover intent (p < 0.05 for all). COVID-19 burden, virtual care use, and prior year turnover were not associated with either outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Employee engagement was associated with a lower likelihood of primary care HCW burnout and turnover intent during the pandemic, suggesting it may have a protective effect during stressful times. COVID-19 burden and virtual care use were not related to either outcome. Future research should focus on understanding the relationship between engagement and burnout and improving well-being in primary care.

Telework Arrangements and Physician Burnout in the Veterans Health Administration.

This survey study of physicians in the Veterans Health Administration examines the association of burnout with various telework arrangements.

Types of Engagement Strategies to Engage High-Risk Patients in VA.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare systems seek to improve care for complex high-risk patients, but engaging such patients to actively participate in their healthcare can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe types of patient engagement strategies reported as successfully deployed by providers/teams and experienced by patients in a Veterans Health Administration (VA) intensive primary care (IPC) pilot program. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 29 VA IPC staff (e.g., physicians, nurses, psychologists) and 51 patients who had at least four IPC team encounters. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach. RESULTS: The engagement strategies successfully deployed by the IPC providers/teams could be considered either more "facilitative," i.e., facilitated by and dependent on staff actions, or more "self-sustaining," i.e., taught to patients, thus cultivating their ongoing patient self-care. Facilitative strategies revolved around enhancing patient access and coordination of care, trust-building, and addressing social determinants of health. Self-sustaining strategies were oriented around patient empowerment and education, caregiver and/or community support, and boundaries and responsibilities. When patients described their experiences with the "facilitative" strategies, many discussed positive proximal outcomes (e.g., increased access to healthcare providers). Self-sustaining strategies led to positive (self-reported) longer-term clinical outcomes, such as behavior change. CONCLUSION: We identified two categories of strategies for successfully engaging complex, high-risk patients: facilitative and self-sustaining. Intensive primary care program leaders may consider thoughtfully building "self-sustaining" engagement strategies into program development. Future research can confirm their effectiveness in improving health outcomes.

Depression care quality among patients with solid tumor cancers detected to have depression in Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics.

Patients with cancer, especially advanced cancer, experience depression at high rates. We aimed to evaluate the quality of depression care received by patients with solid tumor cancer and advanced solid tumor cancer in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients seen in 82 VA primary care clinics who newly screened positive for depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2). Outcomes included timely follow-up within 84 or 180 days (3+ mental health specialty, 3+ psychotherapy, or 3+ primary care visits with depression diagnosis codes) and minimum treatment within 1 year (60+ days antidepressants prescribed, 4+ mental health specialty visits, or 3+ psychotherapy visits). 608,042 individuals were seen in VA primary care clinics during this period; 49,839 patients (8.2%) had solid tumor cancer and 9,278 (1.5%) had advanced or poor-prognosis solid tumor cancer. For 686 observations of patients with cancer and new depression, rates of appropriate follow-up were 22.3% within 84 days and 38.2% within 180 days. For 73 observations of patients with advanced or poor-prognosis cancer and new depression, rates of appropriate follow-up were 21.9% within 84 days and 34.3% within 180 days. Rates of minimum treatment within 1 year were 68.4% and 64.4% for patients with cancer and patients with advanced or poor-prognosis cancer, respectively. Quality of timely depression management is low in patients with solid tumor cancers. Even in health systems with well-integrated mental health services, care gaps remain for patients with cancer and depression. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Associations Between Primary Care Providers and Staff-Reported Access Management Challenges and Patient Perceptions of Access.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Optimizing patients' access to primary care is critically important but challenging. In a national survey, we asked primary care providers and staff to rate specific care processes as access management challenges and assessed whether clinics with more of these challenges had worse access outcomes. METHODS: Study design: Cross sectional. National Primary Care Personnel Survey (NPCPS) (2018) participants included 6210 primary care providers (PCPs) and staff in 813 clinics (19% response rate) and 158,645 of their patients. We linked PCP and staff ratings of access management challenges to veterans' perceived access from 2018-2019 Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients-Patient Centered Medical Home (SHEP-PCMH) surveys (35.6% response rate). MAIN MEASURES: The NPCPS queried PCPs and staff about access management challenges. The mean overall access challenge score was 28.6, SD 6.0. The SHEP-PCMH access composite asked how often veterans reported always obtaining urgent appointments same/next day; routine appointments when desired and having medical questions answered during office hours. ANALYTIC APPROACH: We aggregated PCP and staff responses to clinic level, and use multi-level, multivariate logistic regressions to assess associations between clinic-level access management challenges and patient perceptions of access. We controlled for veteran-, facility-, and area-level characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Veterans at clinics with more access management challenges (> 75th percentile) had a lower likelihood of reporting always receiving timely urgent care appointments (AOR: .86, 95% CI: .78-.95); always receiving routine appointments (AOR: .74, 95% CI: .67-.82); and always reporting same- or next-day answers to telephone questions (AOR: .79, 95% CI: .70-.90) compared to veterans receiving care at clinics with fewer (< 25th percentile) challenges. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Findings show a strong relationship between higher levels of access management challenges and worse patient perceptions of access. Addressing access management challenges, particularly those associated with call center communication, may be an actionable path for improved patient experience.

Learning from national implementation of the Veterans Affairs Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program for improving access to care: protocol for a six year evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program aims to improve patient access to care by implementing time-limited, regionally based primary or mental health staffing support to cover local staffing vacancies. VA's Office of Primary Care (OPC) designed CRH to support more than 1000 geographically disparate VA outpatient sites, many of which are in rural areas, by providing virtual contingency clinical staffing for sites experiencing primary care and mental health staffing deficits. The subsequently funded CRH evaluation, carried out by the VA Primary Care Analytics Team (PCAT), partnered with CRH program leaders and evaluation stakeholders to develop a protocol for a six-year CRH evaluation. The objectives for developing the CRH evaluation protocol were to prospectively: 1) identify the outcomes CRH aimed to achieve, and the key program elements designed to achieve them; 2) specify evaluation designs and data collection approaches for assessing CRH progress and success; and 3) guide the activities of five geographically dispersed evaluation teams. METHODS: The protocol documents a multi-method CRH program evaluation design with qualitative and quantitative elements. The evaluation's overall goal is to assess CRH's return on investment to the VA and Veterans at six years through synthesis of findings on program effectiveness. The evaluation includes both observational and quasi-experimental elements reflecting impacts at the national, regional, outpatient site, and patient levels. The protocol is based on program evaluation theory, implementation science frameworks, literature on contingency staffing, and iterative review and revision by both research and clinical operations partners. DISCUSSION: Health systems increasingly seek to use data to guide management and decision-making for newly implemented clinical programs and policies. Approaches for planning evaluations to accomplish this goal, however, are not well-established. By publishing the protocol, we aim to increase the validity and usefulness of subsequent evaluation findings. We also aim to provide an example of a program evaluation protocol developed within a learning health systems partnership.

The Clinical Resource Hub Initiative: First-Year Implementation of the Veterans Health Administration Regional Telehealth Contingency Staffing Program.

Health care systems face challenges providing accessible health care across geographically disparate sites. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed regional telemedicine service focusing initially on primary care and mental health services. The objective of this study is to describe the program and progress during the early implementation. In its first year, the Clinical Resource Hub program provided 244 515 encounters to 95 684 Veterans at 475 sites. All 18 regions met or exceeded minimum implementation requirements. The regionally based telehealth contingency staffing hub met early implementation goals. Further evaluation to review sustainability and impact on provider experience and patient outcomes is needed.

Changes in Primary Care Quality Associated With Implementation of the Veterans Health Administration Preventive Health Inventory.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in primary care delivery. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) launched the Preventive Health Inventory (PHI) program-a multicomponent care management intervention, including a clinical dashboard and templated electronic health record note-to support primary care in delivering chronic disease care and preventive care that had been delayed by the pandemic. Objectives: To describe patient, clinician, and clinic correlates of PHI use in primary care clinics and to examine associations between PHI adoption and clinical quality measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used VHA administrative data from February 1, 2021, through February 28, 2022, from a national cohort of 216 VHA primary care clinics that have implemented the PHI. Participants comprised 829 527 veterans enrolled in primary care in clinics with the highest and lowest decile of PHI use as of February 2021. Exposure: Templated electronic health record note documenting use of the PHI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diabetes and blood pressure clinical quality measures were the primary outcomes. Interrupted time series models were applied to estimate changes in diabetes and hypertension quality measures associated with PHI implementation. Low vs high PHI use was stratified at the facility level to measure whether systematic differences in uptake were associated with quality. Results: A total of 216 primary clinics caring for 829 527 unique veterans (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [16.9] years; 755 158 of 829 527 [91%] were men) formed the study cohort. Use of the PHI varied considerably across clinics. The clinics in the highest decile of PHI use completed a mean (SD) of 32 997.4 (14 019.3) notes in the electronic health record per 100 000 veterans compared with 56.5 (35.3) notes per 100 000 veterans at the clinics in the lowest decile of use (P < .001). Compared with the clinics with the lowest use of the PHI, clinics with the highest use had a larger mean (SD) clinic size (12 072 [7895] patients vs 5713 [5825] patients; P < .001), were more likely to be urban (91% vs 57%; P < .001), and served more non-Hispanic Black veterans (16% vs 5%; P < .001) and Hispanic veterans (14% vs 4%; P < .001). Staffing did not differ meaningfully between high- and low-use clinics (mean [SD] ratio of full-time equivalent staff to clinician, 3.4 [1.2] vs 3.4 [0.8], respectively; P < .001). After PHI implementation, compared with the clinics with the lowest use, those with the highest use had fewer veterans with a hemoglobin A1c greater than 9% or missing (mean [SD], 6577 [3216] per 100 000 veterans at low-use clinics; 9928 [4236] per 100 000 veterans at high-use clinics), more veterans with an annual hemoglobin A1c measurement (mean [SD], 13 181 [5625] per 100 000 veterans at high-use clinics; 8307 [3539] per 100 000 veterans at low-use clinics), and more veterans with adequate blood pressure control (mean [SD], 20 582 [12 201] per 100 000 veterans at high-use clinics; 12 276 [6850] per 100 000 veterans at low-use clinics). Conclusions and Relevance: This quality improvement study of the implementation of the VHA PHI suggests that higher use of a multicomponent care management intervention was associated with improved quality-of-care metrics. The study also found significant variation in PHI uptake, with higher uptake associated with clinics with more racial and ethnic diversity and larger, urban clinic sites.

Predictors of VA Primary Care Clerical Staff Burnout Using the Job Demands-Resources Model.

Primary care clerical staff may experience burnout if not adequately prepared and supported for patient-facing customer service tasks. Guided by the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, we use national survey data from 707 primary care clerks at 349 VA clinics (2018; response rate: 12%) to evaluate associations between clerks' perceptions of tasks, work environment, training, and burnout. We found challenges with customer-facing tasks contribute to higher burnout, and supportive work environment was associated with lower burnout. Although perceptions of training were not associated with burnout, our results combined with the JD-R model suggest that customer service training may protect against burnout.

Factors Associated With Patient-Centered Medical Home Teams' Use of Resources for Identifying and Approaches for Managing Patients With Complex Needs.

Using data from a Veterans Health Administration national primary care survey, this study identified the most highly rated tools and care approaches for patients with complex needs and how preferences varied by professional role, staffing, and training. Nurses were significantly more likely to rate most tools as very important as compared with primary care providers. Having a fully staffed team was also significantly associated with a very important rating on all tools. Nurses and fully staffed teams reported a greater likeliness to use most care approaches, and those with perceived need for training reporting a lower likeliness to use.

Patient selection strategies in an intensive primary care program.

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care programs have had variable impacts on clinical outcomes, possibly due to a lack of consensus on appropriate patient-selection. The US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted an intensive primary care program, known as Patient Aligned Care Team Intensive Management (PIM), in five medical centers. We sought to describe the PIM patient selection process used by PIM teams and to explore perspectives of PIM team members regarding how patient selection processes functioned in context. METHODS: This study employs an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. We analyzed qualitative interviews with 21 PIM team and facility leaders and electronic health record (EHR) data from 2,061 patients screened between July 2014 and September 2017 for PIM enrollment. Qualitative data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1,887 patients identified for PIM services using standardized criteria, over half were deemed inappropriate for PIM services, either because of not having an ambulatory care sensitive condition, living situation, or were already receiving recommended care. Qualitative analysis found that team members considered standardized criteria to be a useful starting point but too broad to be relied on exclusively. Additional data collection through chart review and communication with the current primary care team was needed to adequately assess patient complexity. Qualitative analysis further found that differences in conceptualizing program goals led to conflicting opinions of which patients should be enrolled in PIM. CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach that includes clinical judgment, case review, standardized criteria, and targeted program goals are all needed to support appropriate patient selection processes.

Health System Resiliency and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of a New Nationwide Contingency Staffing Program.

When COVID-19 emerged, the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) was in the process of implementing a national contingency staffing program called Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs). CRHs were intended to provide regional contingency staffing for primary and mental health clinics experiencing staffing shortages primarily through telehealth. Long-term plans (year 2) included emergency management support. Early in the implementation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with CRH directors and national program leaders (n = 26) and used a rapid analysis approach to identify actions taken by CRHs to support the resiliency of the VA healthcare system during the pandemic. We found that the CRH program was flexible and nimble enough to allow VA to leverage providers at hubs to better respond to the demands of COVID-19. Actions taken at hubs to sustain patient access and staff resiliency during the pandemic included supporting call centers and training VA providers on virtual care delivery. Factors that facilitated CRH's emergency response included hub staff expertise in telehealth and the increased acceptability of virtual care among key stakeholders. We conclude that hub providers serving as contingency staff, as well as specialization in delivering virtual outpatient and inpatient care, enabled VA health system resiliency and recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Workplace Civility and Burnout Among VA Primary Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: Civility, or politeness, is an important part of the healthcare workplace, and its absence can lead to healthcare provider and staff burnout. Lack of civility is well-documented among mostly female nurses, but is not well-described among the gender-mixed primary care provider (PCP) workforce. Understanding civility and its relationship to burnout among male and female PCPs could help lead to tailored interventions to improve civility and reduce burnout in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To analyze gender differences in civility, burnout, and the relationship between civility and burnout among male and female PCPs. DESIGN: Multi-level logistic regression analysis of a cross-sectional national survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3216 PCP respondents (1946 women and 1270 men) in 135 medical centers from a 2019 national Veterans Health Administration (VA) survey. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes: burnout; predictors: workplace civility and gender; controls: race, ethnicity, VA tenure, and supervisory status. KEY RESULTS: Workplace civility was rated higher (p<0.001) among male (mean = 4.07, standard deviation [SD] = 0.36, range 1-5) compared to female (mean = 3.88, SD = 0.33) PCPs. Almost half of the sample reported burnout (47.6%), but this difference was not significant (p = 0.73) between the genders. Higher workplace civility was significantly related to lower burnout among female PCPs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31 to 0.69), but not among male PCPs (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.42 to 1.22). Interactions between civility and other demographic variables (race, ethnicity, VA tenure, or supervisory status) were not significantly related to burnout. CONCLUSION: Female PCPs report lower workplace civility than male PCPs. An inverse relationship between civility and burnout is present for women but not men. More research is needed on this phenomenon. Interventions tailored to gender- and primary care-specific needs should be employed to increase civility and reduce burnout among PCPs.

The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching Project: Cluster-Randomized Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Patient Experience of Care Coordination.

BACKGROUND: Given persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination. OBJECTIVE: The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics. DESIGN: Multi-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs. INTERVENTIONS: We used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: We quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects. KEY RESULTS: N = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone. CONCLUSION: Although coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.

Association between care coordination tasks with non-VA community care and VA PCP burnout: an analysis of a national, cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The scope of care coordination in VA primary care increased with the launch of the Veterans Choice Act, which aimed to increase access through greater use of non-VA Community Care. These changes may have overburdened already busy providers with additional administrative tasks, contributing to provider burnout. Our objective was to understand the role of challenges with care coordination in burnout. We analyzed relationships between care coordination challenges with Community Care reported by VA primary care providers (PCPs) and VA PCP burnout. METHODS: Our cross-sectional survey contained five questions about challenges with care coordination. We assessed whether care coordination challenges were associated with two measures of provider burnout, adjusted for provider and facility characteristics. Models were also adjusted for survey nonresponse and clustered by facility. Trainee and executive respondents were excluded. 1,543 PCPs in 129 VA facilities nationwide responded to our survey (13 % response rate). RESULTS: 51 % of our sample reported some level of burnout overall, and 46 % reported feeling burned out at least once a week. PCPs were more likely to be burned out overall if they reported more than average challenges with care coordination (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.58 to 2.63). These challenges include managing patients with outside prescriptions or obtaining outside tests or records. CONCLUSIONS: VA primary care providers who reported greater than average care coordination challenges were more likely to be burned out. Interventions to improve care coordination could help improve VA provider experience.

The Primary Care Analytics Team: Integrating research and clinical care within the Veterans Health Administration Office of Primary Care.

By designing and evaluating health system improvements and providing evidence to clinical decision-makers, embedded researchers are a critical part of a Learning Health System (LHS). In this article, we describe the evolution and mission of the Primary Care Analytics Team (PCAT), an integrated research team within the Veterans Health Administration Office of Primary Care. We discuss challenges and strategies for success in working with clinical operations partners and provide recommendations for other Learning Health Systems units embedded in large integrated health care organizations.

Outcomes of a randomized quality improvement trial for high-risk Veterans in year two.

OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) conducted a randomized quality improvement evaluation to determine whether augmenting patient-centered medical homes with Primary care Intensive Management (PIM) decreased utilization of acute care and health care costs among patients at high risk for hospitalization. PIM was cost-neutral in the first year; we analyzed changes in utilization and costs in the second year. DATA SOURCES: VHA administrative data for five demonstration sites from August 2013 to March 2019. DATA SOURCES: Administrative data extracted from VHA's Corporate Data Warehouse. STUDY DESIGN: Veterans with a risk of 90-day hospitalization in the top 10th percentile and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit were randomly assigned to usual primary care vs primary care augmented by PIM. PIM included interdisciplinary teams, comprehensive patient assessment, intensive case management, and care coordination services. We compared the change in mean VHA inpatient and outpatient utilization and costs (including PIM expenses) per patient for the 12-month period before randomization and 13-24 months after randomization for PIM vs usual care using difference-in-differences. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Both PIM patients (n = 1902) and usual care patients (n = 1882) had a mean of 5.6 chronic conditions. PIM patients had a greater number of primary care visits compared to those in usual care (mean 4.6 visits/patient/year vs 3.7 visits/patient/year, p < 0.05), but ED visits (p = 0.45) and hospitalizations (p = 0.95) were not significantly different. We found a small relative increase in outpatient costs among PIM patients compared to those in usual care (mean difference + $928/patient/year, p = 0.053), but no significant differences in mean inpatient costs (+$245/patient/year, p = 0.97). Total mean health care costs were similar between the two groups during the second year (mean difference + $1479/patient/year, p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Approaches that target patients solely based on the high risk of hospitalization are unlikely to reduce acute care use or total costs in VHA, which already offers patient-centered medical homes.