The response of the Military Health System (MHS) to the COVID-19 pandemic: a summary of findings from MHS reviews.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused major disruptions to the US Military Health System (MHS). In this study, we evaluated the MHS response to the pandemic to understand the impact of the pandemic response in a large, national, integrated healthcare system providing care for ~ 9 million beneficiaries. METHODS: We performed a narrative literature review of 16 internal Department of Defense (DoD) reports, including reviews mandated by the US Congress in response to the pandemic. We categorized the findings using the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy (DOTMLPF-P) framework developed by the DoD to assess system efficiency and effectiveness. RESULTS: The majority of the findings were in the policy, organization, and personnel categories. Key findings showed that the MHS structure to address surge situations was beneficial during the pandemic response, and the rapid growth of telehealth created the potential impact for improved access to routine and specialized care. However, organizational transition contributed to miscommunication and uneven implementation of policies; disruptions affected clinical training, upskilling, and the supply chain; and staffing shortages contributed to burnout among healthcare workers. CONCLUSION: Given its highly integrated, vertical structure, the MHS was in a better position than many civilian healthcare networks to respond efficiently to the pandemic. However, similar to the US civilian sector, the MHS also experienced delays in care, staffing and materiel challenges, and a rapid switch to telehealth. Lessons regarding the importance of communication and preparation for future public health emergency responses are relevant to civilian healthcare systems responding to COVID-19 and other similar public health crises.

The Comparative Effectiveness and Provider-induced Demand Collaboration Project: A Pioneering Military-Civilian Academic Partnership to Build Health Services Research Capacity for the Military Health System.

INTRODUCTION: Like civilian health systems, the United States Military Health System (MHS) confronts challenges in achieving the aims of reducing cost, and improving quality, access, and safety, but historically has lacked coordinated health services research (HSR) capabilities that enabled knowledge translation and iterative learning from its wealth of data. A military-civilian academic partnership called the Comparative Effectiveness and Provider-Induced Demand Collaboration (EPIC), formed in 2011, demonstrated early proof-of-concept in using the MHS claims database for research focused on drivers of variation in health care. This existing partnership was reorganized in 2015 and its topics expanded to meet the need for HSR in support of emerging priorities and to develop current and HSR capacity within the MHS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Donabedian framework of structure, process, and outcomes was applied to support the project, through a core of principal investigators, researchers, analysts, and administrators. Within this framework, new researchers and student trainees learn foundations of HSR while performing secondary analysis of claims data from the MHS Data Repository (MDR) focusing on Health and Readiness, Pediatrics, Policy, Surgery, Trauma, and Women's Health. RESULTS: Since 2015, the project has trained 25 faculty, staff, and providers; 51 students and residents; 21 research fellows across multiple disciplines; and as of 2022, produced 107 peer-reviewed publications and 130 conference presentations, across all five themes and six cores. Research results have been incorporated into Federal and professional policy guidelines. Major research areas include opioid usage and prescribing, value-based care, and racial disparities. EPIC researchers provide direct support to MHS leaders and enabling expertise to clinical providers. CONCLUSIONS: EPIC, through its Donabedian framework and utilization of the MHS Data Repository as a research tool, generates actionable findings and builds capacity for continued HSR across the MHS. Eight years after its reorganization in 2015, EPIC continues to provide a platform for capacity building and knowledge translation.

Prevalence of Eye and Vision Disorders in the Military Health System, Fiscal Year 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Eye and vision disorders are estimated to impact 7.08 million people in the United States, including 1.62 million under the age of 40. This study uses the Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System (VEHSS) case definitions to assess the burden of eye and vision disorders in a universally insured, nationally representative population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study applied the VEHSS case definitions to TRICARE claims data collected from the Military Health System Data Repository and Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System during 2018. Beneficiaries aged 0-64 years during the fiscal year 2018 were identified with inpatient and outpatient codes matching to the VEHSS diagnostic case definitions, which were organized into 17 categories of eye and vision disorders classified by the ICD-10. Beneficiaries were recorded only once per category but allowed to match to multiple categories. Analyses included descriptive statistics of patient demographics and prevalence of eye disorders. RESULTS: We identified 4,548,897 TRICARE Prime/Plus beneficiaries (54.86% men and 45.14% women), of whom 22.93% were diagnosed with at least one disorder in 2018. Of those with a diagnosis, the majority were men (50.13%), adults (74.91%), and of or sponsored by a senior enlisted rank (57.83%), used as socioeconomic proxy. Disorders of refraction and accommodation were most prevalent, followed by infectious and inflammatory diseases. Potentially preventable and treatable conditions, including amblyopia and strabismus, infectious and inflammatory disease, and diabetic complications, affected up to 22% of those with vision disorders. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first use of VEHSS measures in a universally insured, socioeconomically diverse population. Identification of potentially treatable or preventable conditions indicates significant opportunity to mitigate the burden of eye and vision disorders in the Military Health System.

Access, Utilization, and Implementation of Research Among Rehabilitation Nurses: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand rehabilitation nurses' perceptions of research information, related barriers, and avenues for future research, specifically in those caring for individuals with burn injury, spinal cord injury, or traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted. METHODS: Eighteen interviews were conducted. A thematic network approach identified codes and developed basic, organizing, and global themes. RESULTS: Researchers identified factors that facilitated research uptake, determined organizational structures that support research culture, and described nurse engagement with literature. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants desired to engage with the research literature, they identified barriers including time constraints, heavy workloads, and lack of access. To facilitate research uptake, research must be easily accessible, be easily digestible, and include clinical practice recommendations. Research must expand its scope to address issues relevant to the rehabilitation population. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings may be used to drive improvements in research competence, facilitate knowledge translation, and support evidence-based practice among rehabilitation nurses.

Qualitative Investigation of Health Information Resources for Caregivers and Individuals Living With Spinal Cord Injury.

Objectives: To identify the information networks of caregivers and individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) and how the health information is accessed and used. Methods: For this qualitative study, participants from the United States were recruited through hospital listservs, websites, social media, and word of mouth to participate in a phone interview. Fourteen individuals living with a traumatic SCI and 18 caregivers of individuals living with a traumatic SCI were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded using NVivo, and analyzed using qualitative thematic methods. Results: Participants reported that medical resources such as SCI specialists were considered the most reliable sources, but due to accessibility barriers the Internet was used the most. The Internet and social resources, such as online and in-person support groups, provided beneficial content information and emotional support, but they posed credibility concerns and left participants feeling unsure of reliability. Information gaps such as lack of education on basic care practices during the transition from acute to chronic care were identified by the participants. Conclusion: Because SCI is an overwhelming experience, it is difficult for patients to retain information in the initial acute care phase, leading to gaps in knowledge about long-term care. Patients are concerned about the reliability of online sources of information; therefore, there is a need for new methods of SCI information dissemination. Potentially, using primary care providers as conduits for information distribution might improve access to reliable long-term SCI information for caregivers and patients.