Same-Day Primary Care Referral Versus Usual Care for Patients With Elevated Blood Pressures Seen in a Preoperative Clinic.

Background While several studies have suggested that anesthesia and surgical care episodes provide an opportunity to improve the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, few studies have implemented and tested pragmatic care coordination efforts for this population. The present study aimed to examine the effects of same-day primary care referral vs. usual care on outpatient hypertension treatment among patients with elevated preoperative clinic blood pressure (BP). Methodology With institutional review board approval of the project as a quality improvement (QI) initiative not requiring consent, we conducted a prospective QI project comparing same-day preoperative primary care referral vs. usual care within comparable cohorts of US Veterans presenting to a preoperative evaluation clinic with elevated BP for whom treatment assignment was based on prior primary care clinic affiliation. Outpatient BP, antihypertensive medications, and antihypertensive dosages at the initial visit and for one year after the initial preoperative clinic visit were followed in the electronic health record. Results Between June 1, 2018, and June 1, 2019, one of the two on-site primary care groups (Firm A) at our facility agreed to accommodate same-day BP referrals. Patients in the second primary care group received standard preoperative care (Firm B). Charts for the pseudo-randomized cohort of Firm A and B patients were compared after 12 months to assess for changes in BP and hypertension treatment. Firm A and B patients were similar in demographics. Overall, 68 (91%) Firm A patients were correctly referred for primary care appointments. Moreover, 28 of 68 (41.2%) patients adhered to the same-day referral recommendation, with the remainder declining to attend the primary care visit. BPs were similar between Firm A and Firm B groups at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-intervention. Firm A adherent patients (i.e., those attending the referral) received hypertension treatment intensification sooner than Firm A non-adherent and Firm B patients (median (interquartile range) days to intensification = 21 (0.5-103.5) vs. 154 (45.5-239) and 170 (48-220), respectively; p = 0.038 and p = 0.048, respectively). Conclusions Our protocol achieved a high degree of same-day primary care referral (91%) in hypertensive patients presenting at the preoperative clinic. Although this limited study did not demonstrate improved BP control in patients who received same-day primary care, this group did show increased rates of rapid treatment intensification which may infer improved long-term health outcomes. Further work examining logistical barriers to patients attending same-day referrals is warranted.

Increasing buprenorphine access for patients with chronic pain: a quality improvement initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine is effective for chronic pain and safer than full-agonist opioids; however, limited education about and support for buprenorphine can result in under-prescribing in primary care and reduced access in specialty pain clinics. The purpose of this quality improvement initiative was to optimize and evaluate procedures for transferring patients stable on buprenorphine for chronic pain from a specialty pain clinic back to primary care. SETTING: Eight primary care clinics within a Veterans Health Administration health care system. METHODS: A standard operating procedure for facilitated transfer of prescribing was developed after a needs assessment and was introduced during an educational session with primary care providers, and providers completed a survey assessing attitudes about buprenorphine prescribing. Success of the initiative was measured through the number of patients transferred back to primary care over the course of 18 months. RESULTS: Survey results indicated that primary care providers with previous experience prescribing buprenorphine were more likely to view buprenorphine prescribing for pain as within the scope of their practice and to endorse feeling comfortable managing a buprenorphine regimen. Providers identified systemic and educational barriers to prescribing, and they identified ongoing support from specialty pain care and primary care as a facilitator of prescribing. Metrics suggested that the standard operating procedure was generally successful in transferring and retaining eligible patients in primary care. CONCLUSION: This quality improvement initiative suggests that a facilitated transfer procedure can be useful in increasing buprenorphine prescribing for pain in primary care. Future efforts to increase primary care provider comfort and address systemic barriers to buprenorphine prescribing are needed.

Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Designed for a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making prior to initiating lung cancer screening (LCS). However, evidence is lacking on how to best implement shared decision-making in clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the impact of an LCS Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) on the quality of decision-making and LCS uptake. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at Veteran Affairs Medical Centers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and West Haven, Connecticut, from March 18, 2019, to September 29, 2021, with follow-up through July 18, 2022. Individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years who were current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years were eligible to participate. Individuals with LCS within 15 months were excluded. Of 1047 individuals who were sent a recruitment letter or had referred themselves, 140 were enrolled. Intervention: A web-based patient- and clinician-facing LCS decision support tool vs an attention control intervention. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was decisional conflict at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict immediately after intervention and 3 months after intervention, knowledge, decisional regret, and anxiety immediately after intervention and 1 and 3 months after intervention and LCS by 6 months. Results: Of 140 enrolled participants (median age, 64.0 [IQR, 61.0-69.0] years), 129 (92.1%) were men and 11 (7.9%) were women. Of 137 participants with data available, 75 (53.6%) were African American or Black and 62 (44.3%) were White; 4 participants (2.9%) also reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Mean decisional conflict score at 1 month did not differ between the LCSDecTool and control groups (25.7 [95% CI, 21.4-30.1] vs 29.9 [95% CI, 25.6-34.2], respectively; P = .18). Mean LCS knowledge score was greater in the LCSDecTool group immediately after intervention (7.0 [95% CI, 6.3-7.7] vs 4.9 [95% CI, 4.3-5.5]; P < .001) and remained higher at 1 month (6.3 [95% CI, 5.7-6.8] vs 5.2 [95% CI, 4.5-5.8]; P = .03) and 3 months (6.2 [95% CI, 5.6-6.8] vs 5.1 [95% CI, 4.4-5.8]; P = .01). Uptake of LCS was greater in the LCSDecTool group at 6 months (26 of 69 [37.7%] vs 15 of 71 [21.1%]; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of an LCSDecTool compared with attention control, no effect on decisional conflict occurred at 1 month. The LCSDecTool used in the primary care setting did not yield a significant difference in decisional conflict. The intervention led to greater knowledge and LCS uptake. These findings can inform future implementation strategies and research in LCS shared decision-making. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02899754.

Implementation of a standardized process for outpatient COVID-19 treatments at a Veterans Affairs medical center.

BACKGROUND: The initial availability and distribution of new therapeutic options for outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was limited by insufficient supply, challenges related to administration and dispensing, and unique clinical considerations of each medication. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the implementation of a standardized process for prescribing, dispensing, and administering medications for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Patients evaluated in outpatient clinics, the emergency department, or urgent care locations who tested positive for COVID-19 with mild to moderate symptoms were candidates for outpatient management. An interdisciplinary team involving physicians from primary care and the emergency department, pharmacists, and nursing developed a standardized note template to gather relevant information before initiating outpatient COVID-19 treatment. Pharmacists reviewed the patients' eligibility for treatment and discussed the available options with providers to facilitate the timely provision of appropriate treatment. RESULTS: A total of 134 outpatients were evaluated for COVID-19 treatment from January 10, 2022, to March 10, 2022. Following a retrospective chart review, it was determined that a medication was administered or dispensed to 80 of those patients. CONCLUSION: Collaboration as an interdisciplinary team allowed for the efficient development of a systematic process in which outpatients with COVID-19 could be evaluated, prescribed, and administered appropriate medications to reduce their risk of disease progression.

Cessation of group battlefield acupuncture visits due to COVID-19: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, battlefield acupuncture (BFA) was offered to veterans with chronic pain in multidisciplinary group visits. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the impact of cessation of BFA due to COVID-19 and to determine the utility of different aspects of the group visits for chronic pain management. METHODS: Participants who had attended at least three BFA group visits completed questionnaires assessing the impact of treatment interruption on pain, overall function and desire to resume treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-nine veterans were surveyed; 49% responded to the questionnaire. Ninety percent (17/19) agreed that BFA was an important part of pain management and that their pain had worsened after treatment interruption. Seventy-four percent (14/19) responded that they were taking more pain medications since BFA had ended. Ninety-five percent (18/19) responded that BFA improved daily function; 79% (15/19) agreed that BFA improved their sleep. Ninety-five percent (18/19) were interested in resuming BFA. Camaraderie was mentioned as the most helpful aspect of the group by 8/19 (42%) of participants. Participation of health psychology and nutrition were each mentioned as a most helpful aspect of the group by 5/19 (26%) of participants. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that participants may have believed that BFA, camaraderie, and input from nutrition and health psychology services were important contributors to their pain control. The results also suggest that veterans may have suffered worsening pain, used more pain medications, and had worsening quality of sleep and daily function during the COVID-related clinic disruption, and that they were interested in resumption of the program.

A Veteran-Centric Web-Based Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening: Usability Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Web-based tools developed to facilitate a shared decision-making (SDM) process may facilitate the implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS), an evidence-based intervention to improve cancer outcomes. Veterans have specific risk factors and shared experiences that affect the benefits and potential harms of LCS and thus may value a veteran-centric LCS decision tool (LCSDecTool). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct usability testing of an LCSDecTool designed for veterans receiving care at a Veteran Affairs medical center. METHODS: Usability testing of the LCSDecTool was conducted in a prototype version (phase 1) and a high-fidelity version (phase 2). A total of 18 veterans and 8 clinicians participated in phase 1, and 43 veterans participated in phase 2. Quantitative outcomes from the users included the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) in phase 1 and the SUS, EUCS, and Patient Engagement scale in phase 2. Qualitative data were obtained from observations of user sessions and brief interviews. The results of phase 1 informed the modifications of the prototype for the high-fidelity version. Phase 2 usability testing took place in the context of a pilot hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial. RESULTS: In the phase 1 prototype usability testing, the mean SUS score (potential range: 0-100) was 81.90 (SD 9.80), corresponding to an excellent level of usability. The mean EUCS score (potential range: 1-5) was 4.30 (SD 0.71). In the phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing, the mean SUS score was 65.76 (SD 15.23), corresponding to a good level of usability. The mean EUCS score was 3.91 (SD 0.95); and the mean Patient Engagement scale score (potential range 1 [low] to 5 [high]) was 4.62 (SD 0.67). The median time to completion in minutes was 13 (IQR 10-16). A thematic analysis of user statements documented during phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing identified the following themes: a low baseline level of awareness and knowledge about LCS increased after use of the LCSDecTool; users sought more detailed descriptions about the LCS process; the LCSDecTool was generally easy to use, but specific navigation challenges remained; some users noted difficulty understanding medical terms used in the LCSDecTool; and use of the tool evoked veterans' struggles with prior attempts at smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the development and use of this eHealth technology in the primary care clinical setting as a way to engage veterans, inform them about a new cancer control screening test, and prepare them to participate in an SDM discussion with their provider.

Addressing COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance Within a Large Healthcare System: a Population Health Model.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic, and vaccine hesitancy, pose a significant public health threat. The Veterans Health Administration system is uniquely situated to provide insights into the implementation of a population health approach to vaccine acceptance. AIM: We describe the VA Connecticut Healthcare System's (VACHS) quality improvement project to improve rates of vaccine uptake. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: VACHS consists of eight primary care sites with 80 primary care providers delivering care to 47,000 enrolled veterans. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Our program involved identification of a local champion, education sessions, development of vaccine acceptance tools (including the templated "COVID-19 Prevention Letter" and the "COVID-19 Prevention Telephone Note"), and application of a population health approach (use of a prioritization scheme and playbook) by primary care patient-aligned care (PACT) medical home teams. PROGRAM EVALUATION: We found increased rates of vaccination at VACT compared to the surrounding region 6 months after implementation (65.16% vs 61.89%). Use of vaccine acceptance tools were associated with a statistically significant increase in vaccination (24.1% vs 13.6%, P = 0.036) in unvaccinated veterans. DISCUSSION: A population health approach to vaccine acceptance using EHR-based tools can impact vaccination rates, and this approach may be of practical utility to other large healthcare systems with EHR.

Adapting the design of a Web-based decision support clinical trial during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The public health crises that emerged in the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the provision of medical care and placed sudden restrictions on ongoing clinical research. Patient-facing clinical research confronted unique challenges in which recruitment and study protocols were halted and then adapted to meet safety procedures during the pandemic. Our study protocol included the use of a Lung Cancer Screening Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) in the context of a primary care visit and was considerably impacted by the pandemic. We describe our experience adapting a multi-site clinical trial of the LCSDecTool within the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the LCSDecTool to a control intervention. Outcomes included lung cancer screening (LCS) knowledge, shared decision-making, and uptake and adherence to LCS protocol. We identified three strategies that led to the successful adaptation of the study design during the pandemic: (1) multi-level coordination and communication across the organization and study sites, (2) flexibility and adaptability in research during a time of uncertainty and changes in regulation, and (3) leveraging technology to deliver the intervention and conduct study visits, which raised issues concerning equity and internal and external validity. CONCLUSION: Our experience highlights strategies successfully employed to adapt an intervention and behavioral research study protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic. This experience will inform clinical research moving forward both during and subsequent to the constraints placed on research and clinical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

When Is a Harm a Harm? Discordance between Patient and Medical Experts' Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Attributes.

BACKGROUND: A shared decision-making (SDM) process for lung cancer screening (LCS) includes a discussion between clinicians and patients about benefits and potential harms. Expert-driven taxonomies consider mortality reduction a benefit and consider false-positives, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, radiation exposure, and direct and indirect costs of LCS as potential harms. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether patients conceptualize the attributes of LCS differently from expert-driven taxonomies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with semistructured interviews and a card-sort activity. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three Veterans receiving primary care at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 55 to 73 y of age with 30 or more pack-years of smoking. Sixty-one percent were non-Hispanic African American or Black, 35% were non-Hispanic White, 4% were Hispanic, and 9% were female. APPROACH: Semistructured interviews with thematic coding. MAIN MEASURES: The proportion of participants categorizing each attribute as a benefit or harm and emergent themes that informed this categorization. KEY RESULTS: In addition to categorizing reduced lung cancer deaths as a benefit (22/23), most also categorized the following as benefits: routine annual screening (8/9), significant incidental findings (20/23), follow-up in a nodule clinic (20/23), and invasive procedures (16/23). Four attributes were classified by most participants as a harm: false-positive (13/22), overdiagnosis (13/23), overtreatment (6/9), and radiation exposure (20/22). Themes regarding the evaluation of LCS outcomes were 1) the value of knowledge about body and health, 2) anticipated positive and negative emotions, 3) lack of clarity in terminology, 4) underlying beliefs about cancer, and 5) risk assessment and tolerance for uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Anticipating discordance between patient- and expert-driven taxonomies of the benefits and harms of LCS can inform the development and interpretation of value elicitation and SDM discussions.

A Model for Rapid Transition to Virtual Care, VA Connecticut Primary Care Response to COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, health care delivery in the USA has been structured around in-person visits. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a shift to virtual care models in order to reduce patient exposure to high-risk environments and to preserve valuable health care resources. This report describes one large primary care system's model for rapid transition to virtual care (RTVC). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A RTVC model was implemented at the VA Connecticut Health Care System (VACHS), which delivers care to over 58,000 veterans. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The RTVC model included immediate virtual care conversion, telework expansion, implementation of virtual respiratory urgent care clinics, and development of standardized note templates. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Outcomes include the rates of primary encounter types, staff teleworking, and utilization of virtual respiratory urgent care clinics. In under 2 weeks, most encounters were transitioned from in-person to virtual care, enabling telework for over half of the medical staff. The majority of virtual visits were telephone encounters, though rates of video visits increased nearly 18-fold. DISCUSSION: The RTVC model demonstrates expeditious and sustained transition to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our experiences help inform institutions still reliant on traditional in-person visits, and future pandemic response.

Group Battlefield Acupuncture in Primary Care for Veterans with Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain preliminary data on the short- and intermediate-term effects of battlefield acupuncture (BFA) on self-reported pain intensity in a relatively large cohort of veterans to assess whether a more comprehensive clinical trial evaluation is warranted. METHODS: The treatment, in an outpatient group setting, consisted of up to five auricular semipermanent needles inserted into each ear at prespecified points. Efficacy of treatment was measured by self-reported pain, using the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale, just before treatment and at posttreatment days 0, 1, 7, and 30. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients attended the group clinics. The mean pretreatment pain score was 6.8, with an immediate postprocedure decrease of 2.4 points. The proportion of patients reporting decreased pain was 88.4%, 80.7%, 52.4%, and 51% at posttreatment days 0, 1, 7, and 30, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The short- and intermediate-term beneficial effect of BFA on chronic pain is clinically meaningful. The large proportion of patients reporting decreased pain even 30 days after treatment suggests that the long-term effect of BFA merits further investigation.

Linkage between theory-based measurement of organizational readiness for change and lessons learned conducting quality improvement-focused research.

Organizations have different levels of readiness to implement change in the patient care process. The Hypertension Telemedicine Nurse Implementation Project for Veterans (HTN-IMPROVE) is an example of an innovation that seeks to enhance delivery of care for patients with hypertension. We describe the link between organizational readiness for change (ORC), assessed as the project began, and barriers and facilitators occurring during the process of implementing a primary care innovation. Each of 3 Veterans Affairs medical centers provided a half-time nurse and implemented a nurse-delivered, telephone-based self-management support program for patients with uncontrolled hypertension. As the program was starting, we assessed the ORC and factors associated with ORC. On the basis of consensus of medical center and research partners, we enumerated implementation process barriers and facilitators. The primary ORC barrier was unclear long-term commitment of nursing to provide continued resources to the program. Three related barriers included the need to address: (1) competing organizational demands, (2) differing mechanisms to integrate new interventions into existing workload, and (3) methods for referring patients to disease and self-management support programs. Prior to full implementation, however, stakeholders identified a high level of commitment to conduct nurse-delivered interventions fully using their skills. There was also a significant commitment from the core implementation team and a desire to improve patient outcomes. These facilitators were observed during the implementation of HTN-IMPROVE. As demonstrated by the link between barriers to and facilitators of implementation anticipated though the evaluation of ORC and what was actually observed during the process of implementation, this project demonstrates the practical utility of assessing ORC prior to embarking on the implementation of significant new clinical innovations.

Team-Based Hypertension Management to Improve Blood Pressure Control.

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is the most common condition seen in primary care, occurring in 1 in 3 adults in the United States. The patient-centered medical home provides an opportunity for proactive, team-based care of hypertension. The purpose of this pilot study was to measure the effectiveness of a team-based approach to blood pressure management in a busy, primary care setting. METHODS: Using panel management within 2 primary care clinics, a cohort of patients with blood pressures >160/100 mm Hg, was identified. The patients at 1 clinic were contacted by the primary care team and offered multiple interventions aimed at improving blood pressure control; including discussion of medication compliance, medication titration, home blood pressure monitoring, nutritional counseling, and motivational interviewing. The change in blood pressure for these patients at 4 months was compared to a parallel primary care clinic within the same medical center whose patients were treated with usual primary care. RESULTS: A total of 350 and 315 patients were included in the intervention and usual care cohorts, respectively. At 4 months, the decrease of systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was significantly greater than in the usual care group (15.6 vs 9.9 mm Hg; P < .001). Sixty-two percent of patients in the intervention group had lower systolic blood pressures post intervention, compared with 41% of usual care patients (P < .001). Reduction in diastolic blood pressure occurred in 54% of intervention patients, compared with 37% of usual care patients (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of a team-based approach to blood pressure management. This can provide a framework for implementation of team-based care for hypertension in the patient-centered medical home.