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.

Impact of Referring High-Risk Patients to Intensive Outpatient Primary Care Services: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare systems have implemented intensive outpatient primary care programs with the hopes of reducing healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted primary care intensive management (PIM) for patients at high risk for hospitalization or death, or "high-risk." We evaluated whether a referral model would decrease high-risk patient costs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using a quasi-experimental design comparing 456 high-risk patients referred to PIM from October 2017 to September 2018 to 415 high-risk patients matched on propensity score. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans in the top 10th percentile of risk for 90-day hospitalization or death and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit. INTERVENTION: PIM consisted of interdisciplinary teams that performed comprehensive assessments, intensive case management, and care coordination services. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in VHA and non-VHA outpatient utilization, inpatient admissions, and costs 12 months pre- and post-index date. KEY RESULTS: Of the 456 patients referred to PIM, 301 (66%) enrolled. High-risk patients referred to PIM had a marginal reduction in ED visits (- 0.7; [95% CI - 1.50 to 0.08]; p = 0.08) compared to propensity-matched high-risk patients; overall outpatient costs were similar. High-risk patients referred to PIM had similar number of medical/surgical hospitalizations (- 0.2; [95% CI, - 0.6 to 0.16]; p = 0.2), significant increases in length of stay (6.36; [CI, - 0.01 to 12.72]; p = 0.05), and higher inpatient costs ($22,628, [CI, $3587 to $41,669]; p = 0.02) than those not referred to PIM. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: VHA intensive outpatient primary care was associated with higher costs. Referral to intensive case management programs targets the most complex patients and may lead to increased utilization and costs, particularly in an integrated healthcare setting with robust patient-centered medical homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PIM 2.0: Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) Intensive Management (PIM) Project (PIM2). NCT04521816. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04521816.

Informing implementation and dissemination of a specialized primary care medical home for patients with serious mental illness: Clinician and administrator perspectives.

People with serious mental illness (SMI) have lower rates of use of preventative medical services and higher rates of mortality compared to the general population. Research shows that specialized primary care medical homes improve the health care of patients with SMI and are feasible to implement, safe, and more effective than usual care. However, specialized medical homes remain uncommon and model dissemination limited. As part of a controlled trial assessing an SMI-specialized medical home, we examined clinician and administrator perspectives regarding specialized versus mainstream primary care and identified ways to enhance the scale-up of a specialized primary care model for future dissemination. We conducted semistructured interviews with clinicians and administrators at three sites prior to the implementation of an SMI-specialized primary care medical home (n = 26) and at 1-year follow-up (n = 24); one site implemented the intervention, and two sites served as controls. Interviews captured service design features that affected the quality of care provided; contextual factors that supported or impeded medical home implementation; and knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding the care of patients with SMI. Interviews were transcribed and coded. Clinicians and administrators described SMI-specialized primary care medical homes as advancing care coordination and outcomes for patients with SMI. Stakeholders identified elements of a specialized medical home that they viewed as superior to usual care, including having a holistic picture of patients' needs and greater care coordination. However, to enable scale-up, efforts are needed to increase staffing on care teams, develop robust clinician onboarding or training, and ensure close coordination with mental health care providers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Variation in benefit among patients with serious mental illness who receive integrated psychiatric and primary care.

PURPOSE: The population with serious mental illness has high risk for hospitalization or death due to unhealthy behaviors and inadequate medical care, though the level of risk varies substantially. Programs that integrate medical and psychiatric services improve outcomes but are challenging to implement and access is limited. It would be useful to know whether benefits are confined to patients with specific levels of risk. METHODS: In a population with serious mental illness and increased risk for hospitalization or death, a specialized medical home integrated services and improved treatment and outcomes. Treatment quality, chronic illness care, care experience, symptoms, and quality of life were assessed for a median of 385 days. Analyses examine whether improvements varied by baseline level of patient risk. RESULTS: Patients with greater risk were more likely to be older, more cognitively impaired, and have worse mental health. Integrated services increased appropriate screening for body mass index, lipids, and glucose, but increases did not differ significantly by level of risk. Integrated services also improved chronic illness care, care experience, mental health-related quality of life, and psychotic symptoms. There were also no significant differences by risk level. CONCLUSIONS: There were benefits from integration of primary care and psychiatric care at all levels of increased risk, including those with extremely high risk above the 95th percentile. When developing integrated care programs, patients should be considered at all levels of risk, not only those who are the healthiest.

Prescribing and Acceptance of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in VA Primary Care: Veteran and Provider Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) such as buprenorphine/naloxone can effectively treat OUD and reduce opioid-related mortality, but they remain underutilized, especially in non-substance use disorder settings such as primary care (PC). OBJECTIVE: To uncover the factors that can facilitate successful prescribing of MOUD and uptake/acceptance of MOUD by patients in PC settings in the Veterans Health Administration. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 77 providers (e.g., primary care providers, hospitalists, nurses, addiction psychiatrists) and 22 Veteran patients with experience taking MOUD. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach. KEY RESULTS: Providers and patients shared their general perceptions and experiences with MOUD, including high satisfaction with buprenorphine/naloxone with few side effects and caveats, although some patients reported drawbacks to methadone. Both providers and patients supported the idea of prescribing MOUD in PC settings to prioritize patient comfort and convenience. Providers described individual-level barriers (e.g., time, stigma, perceptions of difficulty level), structural-level barriers (e.g., pharmacy not having medications ready, space for inductions), and organizational-level barriers (e.g., inadequate staff support, lack of nursing protocols) to PC providers prescribing MOUD. Facilitators centered on education and knowledge enhancement, workflow and practice support, patient engagement and patient-provider communication, and leadership and organizational support. The most common barrier faced by patients to starting MOUD was apprehensions about pain, while facilitators focused on personal motivation, encouragement from others, education about MOUD, and optimally timed provider communication strategies. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can help improve provider-, clinic-, and system-level supports for MOUD prescribing across multiple settings, as well as foster communication strategies that can increase patient acceptance of MOUD. They also point to how interprofessional collaboration across service lines and leadership support can facilitate MOUD prescribing among non-addiction providers.

Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM. DESIGN: Secondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. SETTING: Five integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions. PARTICIPANTS: Staff and high-risk PC patients in the VA. INTERVENTION: A multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: (a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain. RESULTS: Most (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.

Patient experiences with a primary care medical home tailored for people with serious mental illness.

INTRODUCTION: People with serious mental illness (SMI) have low rates of primary care (PC) use and die years prematurely, mostly because of medical illnesses such as cardiovascular disease or cancer. To meet the needs of these individuals, a novel, specialized patient-centered medical home with care coordination ("SMI PACT") was developed and implemented in PC. This study qualitatively examined patients' experiences with this innovative care model. METHOD: After implementation of the medical home in 2018, one-on-one semistructured interviews were conducted with 28 patients (32% women, 43% Black, and 25% Hispanic). Interviews were professionally transcribed and coded prior to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients overwhelmingly described positive experiences with SMI PACT because of the qualities of interpersonal communication displayed by SMI PACT staff (e.g., nonjudgment, good listening, patience), structural features of the SMI PACT collaborative care model (e.g., frequent follow-up communication), and other unique aspects of the SMI PACT model tailored for SMI, such as easy-to-understand language. For these reasons, most patients expressed a desire to continue care in SMI PACT. Patients also self-reported improved engagement with their healthcare and self-management of diet, exercise, blood pressure, and diabetes control as a result of SMI PACT participation. DISCUSSION: Patients enrolled in a specialized PC medical home identified clinician characteristics and behaviors that informed an overwhelmingly positive impression of the program model. Their experiences can guide dissemination of specialized PC models and integrated services for people with SMI. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

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.

Intensive care management for high-risk veterans in a patient-centered medical home - do some veterans benefit more than others?

BACKGROUND: Primary care intensive management programs utilize interdisciplinary care teams to comprehensively meet the complex care needs of patients at high risk for hospitalization. The mixed evidence on the effectiveness of these programs focuses on average treatment effects that may mask heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) among subgroups of patients. We test for HTEs by patients' demographic, economic, and social characteristics. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a VA randomized quality improvement trial. 3995 primary care patients at high risk for hospitalization were randomized to primary care intensive management (n = 1761) or usual primary care (n = 1731). We estimated HTEs on ED and hospital utilization one year after randomization using model-based recursive partitioning and a pre-versus post-with control group framework. Splitting variables included administratively collected demographic characteristics, travel distance, copay exemption, risk score for future hospitalizations, history of hospital discharge against medical advice, homelessness, and multiple residence ZIP codes. RESULTS: There were no average or heterogeneous treatment effects of intensive management one year after enrollment. The recursive partitioning algorithm identified variation in effects by risk score, homelessness, and whether the patient had multiple residences in a year. Within each distinct subgroup, the effect of intensive management was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care intensive management did not affect acute care use of high-risk patients on average or differentially for patients defined by various demographic, economic, and social characteristics. IMPLICATIONS: Reducing acute care use for high-risk patients is complex, and more work is required to identify patients positioned to benefit from intensive management programs.

High-Risk Patient Experiences Associated With an Intensive Primary Care Management Program in the Veterans Health Administration.

Intensive management programs may improve health care experiences among high-risk and complex patients. We assessed patient experience among (1) prior enrollees (n = 59) of an intensive management program (2014-2018); (2) nonenrollees (n = 356) at program sites; and (3) nonprogram site patients (n = 728), using a patient survey based on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems in 2019. Outcomes included patient ratings of patient-centered care; overall health care experience; and satisfaction with their usual outpatient care provider. In multivariate models, enrollees were more satisfied with their current provider versus nonenrollees within program sites (adjusted odds ratio 2.36; 95% confidence interval 1.15-4.85).

Quality Measures for Patients at Risk of Adverse Outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration: Expert Panel Recommendations.

Importance: Despite longstanding efforts to improve health care quality for patients with complex needs who are at highest risk for hospitalization or death, to our knowledge, no guidance exists on what constitutes measurable high-quality care for this heterogeneous population. Identifying quality measures that are cross-cutting (ie, relevant to multiple chronic conditions and disease states) may enable health care professionals and health care systems to better design and report on quality improvement efforts for this patient population. Objective: To identify quality measures of care and prioritize quality-of-care concepts in the ambulatory primary care setting for patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who have complex care needs and are at high risk for adverse outcomes, such as hospitalization or death. Evidence Review: In this expert panel assessment and prioritization, relevant measure concepts for future quality measure development in 3 care categories (assessment, management, and other features of health care) were extracted from a systematic review, conducted from June 2020 to June 2021, of published studies that suggested, evaluated, or used indicators of quality care for patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Measure concepts associated with single conditions, surgical or other specialty care settings, and inpatient care were excluded. A panel of 14 experts (10 VHA leaders and staff, 2 non-VHA physician investigators, and 2 veterans) discussed and rated the importance of the remaining set of potentially relevant measure concepts using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method on January 15, 2021. Measure concepts were rated on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 being the highest priority. A median rating of 7.5 or greater was used as the cutoff to identify the highest-priority items. Findings: The systematic review identified 519 measure concepts, from which 15 domains and 49 measure concepts were proposed for expert panel consideration. After panel discussions and changes to measure concepts, the expert panel rated 63 measure concepts in 13 domains. The measure concepts with the highest median ratings focused on caregiver availability and support, COVID-19 vaccination, and pneumonia vaccination (all rated 9.0); housing instability (rated 8.5); and physical function, depression symptoms, cognitive impairment, prescription regimen, primary care follow-up after an emergency department visit or hospitalization, and timely transmission of discharge information to primary care (all rated 8.0). Recommendations to improve care included timely assessment of housing instability, caregiver support, physical function, depression symptoms, and cognitive impairment; annual prescription regimen review; coordinated transitions in care; and preventive care including vaccinations. Conclusions and Relevance: The expert panelists identified a parsimonious set of high-priority, evidence-based, cross-cutting quality measure concepts for improving care of patients at high risk for adverse health outcomes in the VHA. These quality measures may inform both future research for patients at high risk and health care system quality improvement.

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.

The Effectiveness of a Specialized Primary Care Medical Home for Patients with Serious Mental Illness.

BACKGROUND: There are unmet primary care needs among people with serious mental illness that might be improved with integrated care and medical care management. Many healthcare organizations have attempted to address this problem, but few interventions have been rigorously studied and found to be effective. OBJECTIVE: Study the implementation and effectiveness of a novel, specialized primary care medical home designed to improve the healthcare of patients with serious mental illness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clustered controlled trial for a median of 401 days. One Veterans Health Administration medical center was assigned to intervention and two were assigned to usual care (control). Thirty-nine clinicians and managers were included in the study, as well as 331 patients who met eligibility criteria. INTERVENTION: A specialized medical home with systematic patient engagement, proactive nurse panel management, a collaborative care psychiatrist, and a primary care physician providing care that included psychiatric treatment. MAIN MEASURES: Quality of care, chronic illness care and care experience, symptoms, and quality of life. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-five intervention patients (40%) moved all psychiatric care to the primary care team. No adverse events were attributable to the intervention. Compared with control, intervention patients had greater improvement over time in appropriate screening for body mass index, lipids, and glucose (χ2 = 6.9, 14.3, and 3.9; P's < .05); greater improvement in all domains of chronic illness care (activation, decision support, goal-setting, counseling, coordination) and care experience (doctor-patient interaction, shared decision-making, care coordination, access; F for each 10-24, P's < .05); and greater improvement in mental health-related quality of life (F = 3.9, P = .05) and psychotic symptoms (F = 3.9, P = .05). CONCLUSION: A primary care medical home for serious mental illness can be feasible to implement, safe, and more effective than usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01668355.

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.

What Is the Return on Investment of Caring for Complex High-need, High-cost Patients?

Randomized controlled trials to improve care for complex, high-need, high-cost patients have not consistently demonstrated a relative decrease in acute care utilization or cost savings. However, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been able to glean lessons from these trials and generate realistic expectations for success. Lessons include the following: (1) combining population management tools (e.g., risk scores) and clinician judgment is more effective than either alone to identify the patients best suited for intensive management; (2) treatment adherence and engagement may contribute more to preventable emergency department visits and hospitalizations than care coordination; and (3) efforts should focus on assessing for and treating those risk factors that are most amenable to intervention. Because it is unlikely that cost savings can fund add-on intensive management programs, the VHA Office of Primary Care plans to incorporate those intensive management practices that are feasible into existing patient-centered medical homes as a high reliability organization.

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.

Outcomes that Matter: High-Needs Patients' and Primary Care Leaders' Perspectives on an Intensive Primary Care Pilot.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value. OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients. DESIGN: A total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: High-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites. APPROACH: We used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects. KEY RESULTS: Patients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort's numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC's effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy).

Can Using an Intensive Management Program Improve Primary Care Staff Experiences With Caring for High-Risk Patients?

BACKGROUND: Complex, high-risk patients present challenges for primary care staff. Intensive outpatient management teams aim to serve as a resource for usual primary care to improve care for high-risk patients without adding burden to the primary care staff. Whether such assistance can influence the primary care staff experiences is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine improvement in job satisfaction and intent to stay for primary care staff at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who sought assistance from an intensive management program. METHODS: Longitudinal analysis of a staff cohort that completed 2 cross-sectional surveys 18 months apart, controlling for outcomes at time 1. Participants included 144 primary care providers at 5 geographically diverse VA health care systems who completed both surveys. Measured outcomes included job satisfaction and intent to stay within primary care at the VA (measured at time 2). Predictors included likelihood of using intensive management teams (measured at time 1). Covariates included outcomes and professional/practice characteristics (measured at time 1). RESULTS: The response rate for primary care staff that completed both surveys was 21%. Staff who indicated at time 1 that they were more likely to use intensive management teams for high-risk patients reported significantly higher satisfaction and intention to stay at VA primary care at time 2 (both P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: A VA primary care workforce might benefit from assistance from intensive management teams for high-risk patients. Additional work is needed to understand the mechanisms by which primary care staff benefit and how to optimize them.