Deintensification or No Statin Treatment Is Associated With Higher Mortality in Patients With Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

Background and Purpose: Practice guidelines recommend that most patients receive moderate- or high-potency statins after ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) of atherosclerotic origin. We tested the association of different patterns of potency for prescribed statin therapy­assessed before admission and at hospital discharge for ischemic stroke or TIA­on mortality in a large, nationwide sample of US Veterans. Methods: The study population included patients with an ischemic stroke or TIA occurring during 2011 at any of the 134 Veterans Health Administration facilities. We used electronic outpatient pharmacy files to identify statin dose at hospital admission and within 7 days after hospital discharge. We categorized statin dosing as low, moderate, or high potency; moderate or high potency was considered at goal. We created 6 mutually exclusive groups to reflect patterns of statin potency from hospital admission to discharge: goal to goal, low to goal, goal to low or goal to none (deintensification), none to none, none to low, and low to low. We used logistic regression to compare 30-day and 1-year mortality across statin potency groups. Results: The population included 9380 predominately White (71.1%) men (96.3%) who were hospitalized for stroke or TIA. In this sample, 34.1% of patients (n=3194) were discharged off a statin medication. Deintensification occurred in 14.0% of patients (n=1312) and none to none in 20.5% (n=1924). Deintensification and none to none were associated with a higher odds of mortality as compared with goal to goal (adjusted odds ratio 1-year mortality: deintensification versus goal to goal, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.02­1.57]; none to none versus goal to goal, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.30­1.93]). Adjustments for differences in baseline characteristics using propensity weighted scores demonstrated similar results. Conclusions: Underutilization of statins, including no treatment or underdosing after stroke (deintensification), was observed in approximately one-third of veterans with ischemic stroke or TIA and was associated with higher mortality when compared with patients who were at goal for statin prescription dosing.

Veterans Affairs Pharmacogenomic Testing for Veterans (PHASER) clinical program.

In 2019, the Veterans Affairs (VA), the largest integrated US healthcare system, started the Pharmacogenomic Testing for Veterans (PHASER) clinical program that provides multi-gene pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing for up to 250,000 veterans at approximately 50 sites. PHASER is staggering program initiation at sites over a 5-year period from 2019 to 2023, as opposed to simultaneous initiation at all sites, to facilitate iterative program quality improvements through Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Current resources in the PGx field have not focused on multisite, remote implementation of panel-based PGx testing. In addition to bringing large scale PGx testing to veterans, the PHASER program is developing a roadmap to maximize uptake and optimize the use of PGx to improve drug response outcomes.

Agent Orange Exposure and Dementia Diagnosis in US Veterans of the Vietnam Era.

Importance: Agent Orange is a powerful herbicide that contains dioxin and was used during the Vietnam War. Although prior studies have found that Agent Orange exposure is associated with increased risk of a wide range of conditions, including neurologic disorders (eg, Parkinson disease), metabolic disorders (eg, type 2 diabetes), and systemic amyloidosis, the association between Agent Orange and dementia remains unclear. Objective: To examine the association between Agent Orange exposure and incident dementia diagnosis in US veterans of the Vietnam era. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included Veterans Health Administration data from October 1, 2001, and September 30, 2015, with up to 14 years of follow-up. Analyses were performed from July 2018 to October 2020. A 2% random sample of US veterans of the Vietnam era who received inpatient or outpatient Veterans Health Administration care, excluding those with dementia at baseline, those without follow-up visits, and those with unclear Agent Orange exposure status. Exposures: Presumed Agent Orange exposure documented in electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: Fine-Gray competing risk models were used to compare the time to dementia diagnosis (with age as the time scale) for veterans with vs without presumed Agent Orange exposure (as per medical records), adjusting for demographic variables and medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Results: The total sample was 511 189 individuals; after exclusions, 316 351 were included in analyses. Veterans were mostly male (n = 309 889 [98.0%]) and had a mean (SD) age of 62 (6.6) years; 38 121 (12.1%) had presumed Agent Orange exposure. Prevalence of most conditions, including Parkinson disease, diabetes, and amyloidosis, was similar at baseline among veterans with and without Agent Orange exposure. After adjusting for demographic variables and comorbidities, veterans exposed to Agent Orange were nearly twice as likely as those not exposed to receive a dementia diagnosis over a mean (SD) of 5.5 (3.8) years of follow-up (1918 of 38 121 [5.0%] vs 6886 of 278 230 [2.5%]; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.68 [95% CI, 1.59-1.77]). Veterans with Agent Orange exposure developed dementia at a mean of 1.25 years earlier (at a mean [SD] age of 67.5 [7.0] vs 68.8 [8.0] years). Conclusions and Relevance: Veterans with Agent Orange exposure were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with dementia, even after adjusting for the competing risk of death, demographic variables, and medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Additional studies are needed to examine potential mechanisms underlying the association between Agent Orange exposure and dementia.

Hospital preparedness for COVID-19 pandemic: experience from department of medicine at Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System.

The 2019-2020 pandemic Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has inundated hospital systems globally, as they prepare to accommodate surge of patients requiring advanced levels of care. Pandemic preparedness has not been this urgently and widely needed in the last several decades. According to epidemiologic predictions, the peak of this pandemic has still not been reached, and hospitals everywhere need to ensure readiness to care for more patients than they usually do, and safety for healthcare workers who strive to save lives. We share our hospital-wide rapid preparedness and response to COVID-19 to help provide information to other healthcare systems globally.

Does machine learning improve prediction of VA primary care reliance?

OBJECTIVES: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System is among the largest integrated health systems in the United States. Many VA enrollees are dual users of Medicare, and little research has examined methods to most accurately predict which veterans will be mostly reliant on VA services in the future. This study examined whether machine learning methods can better predict future reliance on VA primary care compared with traditional statistical methods. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of 83,143 VA patients dually enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare using VA and Medicare administrative databases and the 2012 Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients. METHODS: The primary outcome was a dichotomous measure denoting whether patients obtained more than 50% of all primary care visits (VA + Medicare) from VA. We compared the performance of 6 candidate models-logistic regression, elastic net regression, decision trees, random forest, gradient boosting machine, and neural network-in predicting 2013 reliance as a function of 61 patient characteristics observed in 2012. We measured performance using the cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) metric. RESULTS: Overall, 72.9% and 74.5% of veterans were mostly VA reliant in 2012 and 2013, respectively. All models had similar average AUROCs, ranging from 0.873 to 0.892. The best-performing model used gradient boosting machine, which exhibited modestly higher AUROC and similar variance compared with standard logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: The modest gains in performance from the best-performing model, gradient boosting machine, are unlikely to outweigh inherent drawbacks, including computational complexity and limited interpretability compared with traditional logistic regression.

Anticoagulant Prescribing for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the Veterans Health Administration.

Background Direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) theoretically could contribute to addressing underuse of anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Few studies have examined this prospect, however. The potential of DOACs to address underuse of anticoagulation in NVAF could be magnified within a healthcare system that sharply limits patients' exposure to out-of-pocket copayments, such as the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Methods and Results We used a clinical data set of all patients with NVAF treated within VA from 2007 to 2016 (n=987 373). We examined how the proportion of patients receiving any anticoagulation, and which agent was prescribed, changed over time. When first approved for VA use in 2011, DOACs constituted a tiny proportion of all prescriptions for anticoagulants (2%); by 2016, this proportion had increased to 45% of all prescriptions and 67% of new prescriptions. Patient characteristics associated with receiving a DOAC, rather than warfarin, included white race, better kidney function, fewer comorbid conditions overall, and no history of stroke or bleeding. In 2007, before the introduction of DOACs, 56% of VA patients with NVAF were receiving anticoagulation; this dipped to 44% in 2012 just after the introduction of DOACs and had risen back to 51% by 2016. Conclusions These results do not suggest that the availability of DOACs has led to an increased proportion of patients with NVAF receiving anticoagulation, even in the context of a healthcare system that sharply limits patients' exposure to out-of-pocket copayments.

Impact of Rural Residence on Kidney Transplant Rates Among Waitlisted Candidates in the VA Transplant Programs.

BACKGROUND: Although proportionally more veterans live in rural areas compared to nonveterans, the impact of rurality status on kidney transplantation (KTP) access among veterans is unknown. Our objective was to study KTP rates among veterans listed for KTP and to compare the impact of rurality status on KTP rates among veterans and nonveterans. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients waitlisted per the United Network for Organ Sharing from January 2000 to December 2014. Patient characteristics were compared using Chi-square or t tests, as appropriate, by veteran status and patient rurality. Multivariable competing-risks Cox regression was performed. RESULTS: The study sample included 3281 veterans receiving care in Veteran Health Administration transplant programs and 445 177 nonveterans. Veterans, compared to nonveterans, were older (57 versus 50 y; P < 0.001), more likely to be male (96% versus 60%; P < 0.001) or diabetic at waitlisting (51% versus 41%; P < 0.001), and less likely be an urban resident (79% versus 84%; P < 0.001). Among veterans, dialysis duration prior to registration was longer among urban compared to all other rurality types (810 ± 22.1 d versus 632 to 702 ± 41.6 to 77.6 d; P = 0.02). In multivariate competing risks models, there was no evidence that the hazard of transplant among veterans differs by residential rurality. CONCLUSIONS: Among waitlisted veterans served by Veteran Health Administration transplant programs, residential rurality status does not portend longer waiting time for KTP.

Transforming Veterans Health Administration Mental Health Clinician Education and Practices: 20 Years of Educational Initiatives by a Center of Excellence.

Twenty years ago, the US Congress articulated a need to decrease the time it takes clinical best practices to move from the literature to daily clinical practice. The Veterans Affairs South Central Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center was one of several centers of excellence established to address this need. It is also unique in that it focuses on rural and underserved veterans. This article summarizes the education accomplishments of the South Central Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center thus far in providing educational resources and trainings to frontline Veterans Affairs mental health staff with the goal of bringing best practices to routine clinical care, thus improving mental health services. We describe the use of implementation science to support dissemination of information, such as the monthly mental health grand rounds, especially for rural staff to receive continuing education, and the adoption of evidence-based psychotherapy trainings. The Clinical Educator Grants program allows clinicians to share their clinical expertise through development of practical tools for practice gaps they identify. We describe some future directions to meet the evolving needs of Veterans Affairs and community clinicians to provide the best possible care to Veterans. Take-away messages are that, for trainings to be successful, an implementation plan is critical and that an effective educational program requires funding and leadership commitment.

Use of PROMIS-29® in US Veterans: Diagnostic Concordance and Domain Comparisons with the General Population.

BACKGROUND: PROMIS® items have not been widely or systematically used within the Veterans Health Administration (VA). OBJECTIVE: To examine the concordance of PROMIS-29® scores and medical record diagnosis in US Veterans and to compare Veteran scores relative to US population norms. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional multi-site survey of Veterans (n = 3221) provided sociodemographic and PROMIS-29® domain data. Electronic medical records provided health condition (depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, pain disorders) diagnosis data. MAIN MEASURES: For each domain, we calculated PROMIS® standardized T scores and used t tests to compare PROMIS® scores for Veterans diagnosed with each targeted health condition vs. those without that documented clinical diagnosis and compare mean Veterans' PROMIS-29® with US adult population norms. KEY RESULTS: Veterans with (vs. without) a depression diagnosis reported significantly higher PROMIS® depression scores (60.3 vs. 49.6, p < .0001); those with an anxiety diagnosis (vs. without) reported higher average PROMIS® anxiety scores (62.7 vs. 50.9, p < .0001). Veterans with (vs. without) a pain disorder reported higher pain interference (65.3 vs. 57.7, p < .0001) and pain intensity (6.4 vs. 4.4, p < .0001). Veterans with (vs. without) a sleep disorder reported higher sleep disturbance (55.8 vs. 51.2, p < .0001) and fatigue (57.5 vs. 51.8, p < .0001) PROMIS® scores. Compared with the general population norms, Veterans scored worse across all PROMIS-29® domains. CONCLUSIONS: We found that PROMIS-29® domains are selectively sensitive to expected differences between clinically-defined groups, suggesting their appropriateness as indicators of condition symptomology among Veterans. Notably, Veterans scored worse across all PROMIS-29(R) domains compared with population norms. Taken collectively, our findings suggest that PROMIS-29® may be a useful tool for VA providers to assess patient's physical and mental health, and because PROMIS® items are normed to the general population, this offers a way to compare the health of Veterans with the adult population at large and identify disparate areas for intervention.

Rates and Impact of Adherence to Recommended Care for Unhealthy Alcohol Use.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is a major worldwide health problem. Yet few studies have assessed provider adherence to the alcohol-related care recommended in clinical practice guidelines, nor links between adherence to recommended care and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe quality of care for unhealthy alcohol use and its impacts on drinking behavior RESEARCH DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study of quality of alcohol care for the population of patients screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use in a large Veterans Affairs health system. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 719 patients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use at one of 11 primary care practices and who completed baseline and 6-month telephone interviews. MAIN MEASURES: Using administrative encounter and medical record data, we assessed three composite and 21 individual process-based measures of care delivered across primary and specialty care settings. We assessed self-reported daily alcohol use using telephone interviews at baseline and 6-month follow-up. KEY RESULTS: The median proportion of patients who received recommended care across measures was 32.8% (range < 1% for initiating pharmacotherapy to 93% for depression screening). There was negligible change in drinking for the study population between baseline and 6 months. In covariate-adjusted analyses, no composites were significantly associated with changes in heavy drinking days or drinks per week, and just one of nine individual measures tested was significantly associated. In a subsample of patients drinking above recommended weekly limits prior to screening, two of nine individual measures were significantly associated. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows wide variability in receipt of recommended care for unhealthy alcohol use. Receipt of recommended interventions for reducing drinking was frequently not associated with decreased drinking. Results suggest deficits in provision of comprehensive alcohol care and in understanding how to improve population-based drinking outcomes.

"Do You Know What I Know?": How Communication Norms and Recipient Design Shape the Content and Effectiveness of Patient Handoffs.

BACKGROUND: Poor communication during end-of-shift transfers of care (handoffs) is associated with safety risks and patient harm. Despite the common perception that handoffs are largely a one-way transfer of information, researchers have documented that they are complex interactions, guided by implicit social norms and mental frameworks. OBJECTIVES: We investigated communication strategies that resident physicians report deploying to tailor information during face-to-face handoffs that are often based on their implicit inferences about the perceived information needs and potential harm to patients. METHODS/PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 35 residents in Medicine and Surgery wards at three VA Medical Centers (VAMCs). MAIN MEASURES: We conducted qualitative interviews using audio-recorded semi-structured cognitive task interviews. KEY RESULTS: The effectiveness of handoff communication depends upon three factors: receiver characteristics, type of shift, and patient's condition and perceived acuity. Receiver characteristics, including subjective perceptions about an incoming resident's training or ability levels and their assumed preferences for information (e.g., detailed/comprehensive vs. minimal/"big picture"), influenced content shared during handoffs. Residents handing off to the night team provided more information about patients' medical histories and care plans than residents handing off to the day team, and higher patient acuity merited more detailed information and the medical service(s) involved dictated the types of information conveyed. CONCLUSIONS: We found that handoff communication involves a complex combination of socio-technical information where residents balance relational factors against content and risk. It is not a mechanistic process of merely transferring clinical data but rather is based on learned habits of communication that are context-sensitive and variable, what we refer to as "recipient design." Interventions should focus on raising awareness of times when information is omitted, customized, or expanded based on implicit judgments, the emerging threats such judgments pose to patient care and quality, and the competencies needed to be more explicit in handoff interactions.