Patient Perspectives on Opioids: Views of Inpatient Veterans with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate perspectives on opioids and opioid use from hospitalized veterans with comorbid chronic pain using qualitative methods. DESIGN: This was an analysis of individual qualitative interviews. The semistructured interview guide was developed by a hospitalist with clinical expertise in pain treatment with guidance from a medical anthropologist. Interviews aimed to understand participants' experiences of chronic pain. SETTING: A Midwestern Veterans Health Administration inpatient hospital unit. SUBJECTS: Nineteen inpatient veterans with a history of chronic pain or antecedent opioid use. METHODS: Recently admitted veterans were screened for chronic pain diagnosis on admission and antecedent opioid use. Eligible veterans were approached to participate in an in-person interview during their hospitalization. RESULTS: The following themes were identified in relation to opioid use: other patients as the problem (by misusing opioids resulting in broad limits to opioid access), empathy for providers (perceived to be working under prescribing constraints), and opioids as a last resort. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants were not specifically questioned about opioid medications, discussion of opioids was prevalent in discussions of chronic pain. Findings suggest the potential utility of engaging hospitalized veterans in conversations about opioids and alternative pain management strategies.

Gatekeepers as Care Providers: The Care Work of Patient-centered Medical Home Clerical Staff.

International implementation of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model for delivering primary care has dramatically increased in the last decade. A majority of research on PCMH's impact has emphasized the care provided by clinically trained staff. In this article, we report our ethnographic analysis of data collected from Department of Veterans Affairs staff implementing PACT, the VA version of PCMH. Teams were trained to use within-team delegation, largely accomplished through attention to clinical licensure, to differentiate staff in providing efficient, patient-centered care. In doing so, PACT may reinforce a clinically defined culture of care that countermands PCMH ideals. Such competing rubrics for care are brought into relief through a focus on the care work performed by clerks. Ethnographic analysis identifies clerks' care as a kind of emotional dirty work, signaling important areas for future anthropological study of the relationships among patient-centered care, stigma, and clinical authority.

Implications of the Patient-Centered Medical Home for Nursing Practice.

OBJECTIVE: The experiences of RNs and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) implementing a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics were examined to understand model implications for nursing practice and professional identity. BACKGROUND: National implementation of the PCMH model, called patient-aligned care teams (PACTs) in VA, emphasizes areas of nursing expertise, yet little is known about the effect of medical homes on the day-to-day work of nurses. METHODS: As part of a formative evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators to PACT implementation, we interviewed 18 nurses implementing PACT. RESULTS: Challenges to nurse's organizational and professional roles were experienced differently by RNs and LPNs in the following areas: (1) diversified modes of care and expanded clinical duties, (2) division of labor among PACT nurses, and (3) interprofessional status in the team. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare managers implementing PCMH should consider its inherent cultural and practice transformations.

Implementing smoking cessation guidelines for hospitalized veterans: effects on nurse attitudes and performance.

BACKGROUND: A minority of hospitalized smokers actually receives assistance in quitting during hospitalization or cessation counseling following discharge. This study aims to determine the impact of a guideline-based intervention on 1) nurses' delivery of the 5A's (Ask-Advise-Assess-Assist-Arrange follow-up) in hospitalized smokers, and 2) nurses' attitudes toward the intervention. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post guideline implementation trial involving 205 hospitalized smokers on the inpatient medicine units at one US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. The intervention included: 1) academic detailing of nurses on delivery of brief cessation counseling, 2) modification of the admission form to facilitate 5A's documentation, and 3) referral of motivated inpatients to receive proactive telephone counseling. Based on subject interviews, we calculated a nursing 5A's composite score for each patient (ranging from 0 to 9). We used linear regression with generalized estimating equations to compare the 5A's composite score (and logistic regression to compare individual A's) across periods. We compared 29 nurses' ratings of their self-efficacy and decisional balance ("pros" and "cons") with regard to cessation counseling before and after guideline implementation. Following implementation, we also interviewed a purposeful sample of nurses to assess their attitudes toward the intervention. RESULTS: Of 193 smokers who completed the pre-discharge interview, the mean nursing 5A's composite score was higher after guideline implementation (3.9 vs. 3.1, adjusted difference 1.0, 95 % CI 0.5-1.6). More patients were advised to quit (62 vs. 48 %, adjusted OR = 2.1, 95 % CI = 1.2-3.5) and were assisted in quitting (70 vs. 45 %, adjusted OR = 2.9, 95 % CI = 1.6-5.3) by a nurse during the post-implementation period. Nurses' attitudes toward cessation counseling improved following guideline implementation (35.3 vs. 32.7 on "pros" subscale, p = 0.01), without significant change on the "cons" subscale. CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted intervention including academic detailing and adaptation of the nursing admission template is an effective strategy for improving nurses' delivery of brief cessation counseling in medical inpatients.

Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) Questionnaire to Understand Veterans' Preferences for Tobacco Treatment in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Providers often prescribe counseling and/or medications for tobacco cessation without considering patients' treatment preferences. OBJECTIVE: The primary aims of this study are to describe (1) the development of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire designed to identify the attributes and levels of tobacco treatment that are most important to veterans; and (2) the decision-making process in choosing between hypothetical tobacco treatments. METHODS: We recruited current smokers who were already scheduled for a primary care appointment within a single Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. Subjects were asked to rate the importance of selected treatment attributes and were interviewed during two rounds of pilot testing of initial DCE instruments. Key attributes and levels of the initial instruments were identified by targeted literature review; the instruments were iteratively revised after each round of pilot testing. Using a 'think aloud' approach, subjects were interviewed while completing DCE choice tasks. Constant comparison techniques were used to characterize the issues raised by subjects. Findings from the cognitive interviews were used to revise the initial DCE instruments. RESULTS: Most subjects completed the DCE questionnaire without difficulty and considered two or more attributes in choosing between treatments. Two common patterns of decision-making emerged during the cognitive interviews: (1) counting 'pros' and 'cons' of each treatment alternative; and (2) using a 'rule-out' strategy to eliminate a given treatment choice if it included an undesirable attribute. Subjects routinely discounted the importance of certain attributes and, in a few cases, focused primarily on a single 'must-have' attribute. CONCLUSION: Cognitive interviews provide valuable insights into the comprehension and interpretation of DCE attributes, the decision processes used by veterans during completion of choice tasks, and underlying reasons for non'-compensatory decision-making.

Mixed-Methods Study of Uptake of the Extension for Community Health Outcomes (ECHO) Telemedicine Model for Rural Veterans With HIV.

PURPOSE: Extension for Community Health Outcomes (ECHO) is a provider-level telemedicine model successfully applied to hepatitis C care, but little is known about its application to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) care. We performed a mixed-methods evaluation of 3 HIV ECHO programs in the Veterans Health Administration, focusing on uptake by primary care clinics and veterans. METHODS: Administrative data were used to assess program uptake, including adoption (ie, proportion of primary care clinics participating) and reach (ie, proportion of eligible veterans participating). Veterans were considered eligible if they had an HIV diagnosis and lived nearer to a primary care clinic than to the HIV specialty clinic. We interviewed 31 HIV specialists, primary care providers (PCPs), and administrators engaged in HIV ECHO, and we analyzed interview transcripts to identify factors that influenced program adoption and reach. FINDINGS: Nine (43%) of 21 primary care clinics adopted HIV ECHO (range 33%-67% across sites). Program reach was limited, with 47 (6.1%) of 776 eligible veterans participating. Reach was similar among rural and urban veterans (5.3% vs 6.3%). In interviews, limited adoption and reach were attributed partly to: (1) a sense of "HIV exceptionalism" that complicated shifting ownership of care from HIV specialists to PCPs, and (2) low HIV prevalence and long treatment cycles that prevented rapid learning loops for PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: There was limited uptake of HIV ECHO telemedicine programs in settings where veterans historically traveled to distant specialty clinics. Other telemedicine models should be considered for HIV care.

"Let Me Get You a Nicotine Patch": Nurses' Perceptions of Implementing Smoking Cessation Guidelines for Hospitalized Veterans.

Many hospitalized smokers do not receive guideline-recommended tobacco treatment, but little is known about the perceptions of inpatient nurses with regard to tobacco treatment. We used a sequential explanatory mixed methods design to help explain the findings of an academic detailing intervention trial on the inpatient medicine units of four Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals. We surveyed 164 nurses and conducted semistructured interviews in a purposeful sample of 33 nurses with different attitudes toward cessation counseling. Content analysis was used to inductively characterize the issues raised by participants. Emerging themes were categorized using the knowledge-attitudes-behavior framework of guideline adherence. Knowledge-related and attitudinal barriers included perceived lack of skills in cessation counseling and skepticism about the effectiveness of cessation guidelines in hospitalized veterans. Nurses also reported multiple behavioral and organizational barriers to guideline adherence: resistance from patients, insufficient time and resources, the presence of smoking areas on VA premises, and lack of coordination with primary care. VA hospitals should train inpatient staff how to negotiate behavior change, integrate cessation counseling into nurses' workflow, develop alternative referral mechanisms for post-discharge cessation counseling, and adopt hospital policies to promote inpatient abstinence.

Unclaimed health care benefits: a mixed-method analysis of rural veterans.

PURPOSE: Rural areas contribute a disproportionate number of US military recruits compared to urban areas. However, few studies have examined why many rural veterans do not enroll in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for health care. Our objective was to elicit reasons rural veterans chose not to use VHA. METHODS: This mixed-methods study included quantitative survey and qualitative interview data. Surveys were mailed to 4,176 households with a registered voter in a rural Midwestern county to reach the estimated 1,100 veterans, of whom 600 were not enrolled in VHA. Surveys were designed to assess demographics and basic eligibility requirements for VHA. Themes were derived deductively from survey responses and inductively as they emerged through analysis of interview transcripts. FINDINGS: A total of 180 veterans completed the survey and 165 were eligible based on an approximation of enrollment criteria. Of those, 74 (45%) were current VHA users, and 91 (55%) were nonusers of VHA but appeared to be eligible. The most common reason selected by these potentially eligible veterans for not using VHA was they did not think they were eligible (41%). Interviews revealed the issue of distance was superseded by the perception that enrollees must be poor and have experienced combat, injury, or disability during service. Most reported they had never been told about VHA health care benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that lack of awareness of VHA health care benefits may be the biggest barrier identified by rural veterans. Targeted outreach and education efforts related to eligibility for rural veterans are warranted.

Treating Dual-Use Patients Across Two Health Care Systems: A Qualitative Study.

Improved communication and increased education may enhance the experience and outcomes for veterans using multiple health care systems, according to this qualitative assessment of health care provider views.

Perceptions of pharmacists' integration into patient-centered medical home teams.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are a newer paradigm of health care service delivery. Team-based care that includes pharmacists has been implemented in several countries. Subsequently studies have successfully identified challenges and barriers with team-based care. Research on pharmacists' integration into PCMH is warranted to help bridge knowledge from earlier studies exploring team-based care. In 2010, the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) began a national PCMH implementation, operationalized as "Patient-Aligned Care Teams" (PACTs). The VA's national PACT implementation presents an opportunity to describe other persistent barriers to effective coordination between primary care and pharmacy providers. OBJECTIVE: To identify perceived barriers and facilitators to pharmacist integration into VA PACTs from the perspective of non-pharmacist team members. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of a formative evaluation of PCMH implementation. Participants were from VA medical centers and community-based outpatient clinics in the Midwestern United States and included physicians, nurses, associated health care professionals, and health system administrators. RESULTS: In working toward pharmacy service integration, role clarity and work activities were influenced by team member attitudes toward and previous experiences with pharmacists. Interviewees reported that coordination with pharmacists was hindered if communication placed extra burdens on other team members. Interviewees reported collaboration was easier when pharmacists were onsite, but that technology helped facilitate off-site access to pharmacy services. Finally, some team members characterized pharmacist integration as essential while others failed to integrate pharmacists at all. CONCLUSION: Non-pharmacist members of PACT teams reported some reluctance in pharmacists' integration. They attributed this reluctance to knowledge deficits, limited participation in PACT training by pharmacists, an imbalance in effort expended for pharmacists' integration, and coordination or communication challenges. While there may be unique opportunities for pharmacists to improve patient care through participation in PCMHs, work remains to improve other health professionals' knowledge of and attitudes toward pharmacists' roles on health care teams.

Implementing a patient centered medical home in the Veterans health administration: Perspectives of primary care providers.

Implementation of a patient centered medical home challenges primary care providers to change their scheduling practices to enhance patient access to care as well as to learn how to use performance metrics as part of a self-reflective practice redesign culture. As medical homes become more commonplace, health care administrators and primary care providers alike are eager to identify barriers to implementation. The objective of this study was to identify non-technological barriers to medical home implementation from the perspective of primary care providers. We conducted qualitative interviews with providers implementing the medical home model in Department of Veterans Affairs clinics-the most comprehensive rollout to date. Primary care providers reported favorable attitudes towards the model but discussed the importance of data infrastructure for practice redesign and panel management. Respondents emphasized the need for administrative leadership to support practice redesign by facilitating time for panel management and recognizing providers who utilize non-face-to-face ways of delivering clinical care. Health care systems considering adoption of the medical home model should ensure that they support both technological capacities and vertically aligned expectations for provider performance.

Non-VA primary care providers' perspectives on comanagement for rural veterans.

BACKGROUND: Many veterans utilize health care services within and outside of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). There are limited VA care coordination resources for non-VA primary care providers (PCPs), and the non-VA provider perspective on caring for veterans is underrepresented. The VA requires Patient Aligned Care Teams to coordinate care for veterans across health systems. OBJECTIVE: To elicit perspectives of PCPs on caring for veterans who use both VA and non-VA health care. METHODS: Qualitative data from semistructured telephone interviews were interpreted in the context of quantitative survey results. Participants were PCPs in a practice-based research network in 2011. 67 non-VA PCPs completed surveys, and descriptive statistics were performed. 21 semistructured telephone interviews were transcribed and underwent thematic analysis. RESULTS: Current communication with VA was viewed as poor, and many believed this led to poor patient outcomes. The veteran was identified as the main vehicle for information transfer between providers, which was viewed as undesirable. Non-VA providers felt they were interacting with VA as a system rather than with individual providers. CONCLUSIONS: VA system barriers hinder communication between providers, possibly resulting in fragmented care. Addressing these barriers will potentially improve patient safety and satisfaction.