Clinician and staff experiences with frustrated patients during an electronic health record transition: a qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) transitions are known to be highly disruptive, can drastically impact clinician and staff experiences, and may influence patients' experiences using the electronic patient portal. Clinicians and staff can gain insights into patient experiences and be influenced by what they see and hear from patients. Through the lens of an emergency preparedness framework, we examined clinician and staff reactions to and perceptions of their patients' experiences with the portal during an EHR transition at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). METHODS: This qualitative case study was situated within a larger multi-methods evaluation of the EHR transition. We conducted a total of 122 interviews with 30 clinicians and staff across disciplines at the initial VA EHR transition site before, immediately after, and up to 12 months after go-live (September 2020-November 2021). Interview transcripts were coded using a priori and emergent codes. The coded text segments relevant to patient experience and clinician interactions with patients were extracted and analyzed to identify themes. For each theme, recommendations were defined based on each stage of an emergency preparedness framework (mitigate, prepare, respond, recover). RESULTS: In post-go-live interviews participants expressed concerns about the reliability of communicating with their patients via secure messaging within the new EHR portal. Participants felt ill-equipped to field patients' questions and frustrations navigating the new portal. Participants learned that patients experienced difficulties learning to use and accessing the portal; when unsuccessful, some had difficulties obtaining medication refills via the portal and used the call center as an alternative. However, long telephone wait times provoked patients to walk into the clinic for care, often frustrated and without an appointment. Patients needing increased in-person attention heightened participants' daily workload and their concern for patients' well-being. Recommendations for each theme fit within a stage of the emergency preparedness framework. CONCLUSIONS: Application of an emergency preparedness framework to EHR transitions could help address the concerns raised by the participants, (1) mitigating disruptions by identifying at-risk patients before the transition, (2) preparing end-users by disseminating patient-centered informational resources, (3) responding by building capacity for disrupted services, and (4) recovering by monitoring integrity of the new portal function.

"Like One Long Battle:" Employee Perspectives of the Simultaneous Impact of COVID-19 and an Electronic Health Record Transition.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations regularly manage external stressors that threaten patient care, but experiences handling concurrent stressors are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experience of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinicians and staff navigating simultaneous organizational stressors-an electronic health record (EHR) transition and the COVID-19 pandemic-and identify potential strategies to optimize management of co-occurring stressors. DESIGN: Qualitative case study describing employee experiences at VA's initial EHR transition site. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians, nurses, allied health professionals, and local leaders at VA's initial EHR transition site. APPROACH: We collected longitudinal qualitative interview data between July 2020 and November 2021 once before and 2-4 times after the date on which the health system transitioned; this timing corresponded with local surges of COVID-19 cases. Interviewers conducted coding and analysis of interview transcripts. For this study, we focused on quotes related to COVID-19 and performed content analysis to describe recurring themes describing the simultaneous impact of COVID-19 and an EHR transition. KEY RESULTS: We identified five themes related to participants' experiences: (1) efforts to mitigate COVID-19 transmission led to insufficient access to EHR training and support, (2) clinical practice changes in response to the pandemic impacted EHR workflows in unexpected ways, (3) lack of clear communication and inconsistent enforcement of COVID-19 policies intensified pre-existing frustrations with the EHR, (4) managing concurrent organizational stressors increased work dissatisfaction and feelings of burnout, and (5) participants had limited bandwidth to manage competing demands that arose from concurrent organizational stressors. CONCLUSION: The expected challenges of an EHR transition were compounded by co-occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had negative impacts on clinician experience and patient care. During simultaneous organizational stressors, health care facilities should be prepared to address the complex interplay of two stressors on employee experience.

Assessing Electronic Health Record (EHR) Use during a Major EHR Transition: An Innovative Mixed Methods Approach.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) transitions are inherently disruptive to healthcare workers who must rapidly learn a new EHR and adapt to altered clinical workflows. Healthcare workers' perceptions of EHR usability and their EHR use patterns following transitions are poorly understood. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is currently replacing its homegrown EHR with a commercial Cerner EHR, presenting a unique opportunity to examine EHR use trends and usability perceptions. OBJECTIVE: To assess EHR usability and uptake up to 1-year post-transition at the first VA EHR transition site using a novel longitudinal, mixed methods approach. DESIGN: A concurrent mixed methods strategy using EHR use metrics and qualitative interview data. PARTICIPANTS: 141 clinicians with data from select EHR use metrics in Cerner Lights On Network®. Interviews with 25 healthcare workers in various clinical and administrative roles. APPROACH: We assessed changes in total EHR time, documentation time, and order time per patient post-transition. Interview transcripts (n = 90) were coded and analyzed for content specific to EHR usability. KEY RESULTS: Total EHR time, documentation time, and order time all decreased precipitously within the first four months after go-live and demonstrated gradual improvements over 12 months. Interview participants expressed ongoing concerns with the EHR's usability and functionality up to a year after go-live such as tasks taking longer than the old system and inefficiencies related to inadequate training and inherent features of the new system. These sentiments did not seem to reflect the observed improvements in EHR use metrics. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of quantitative and qualitative data yielded a complex picture of EHR usability. Participants described persistent challenges with EHR usability 1 year after go-live contrasting with observed improvements in EHR use metrics. Combining findings across methods can provide a clearer, contextualized understanding of EHR adoption and use patterns during EHR transitions.

Impacts of an Electronic Health Record Transition on Veterans Health Administration Health Professions Trainee Experience.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of electronic health care records (EHRs) has proliferated since 2000. While EHR transitions are widely understood to be disruptive, little attention has been paid to their effect on health professions trainees' (HPTs) ability to learn and conduct work. Veterans Health Administration's (VA) massive transition from its homegrown EHR (CPRS/Vista) to the commercial Oracle Cerner presents an unparalleled-in-scope opportunity to gain insight on trainee work functions and their ability to obtain requisite experience during transitions. OBJECTIVE: To identify how an organizational EHR transition affected HPT work and learning at the third VA go-live site. DESIGN: A formative mixed-method evaluation of HPT experiences with VHA's EHR transition including interviews with HPTs and supervisors at Chalmers P. Wylie VA Outpatient Clinic in Columbus, OH, before (~60 min), during (15-30 min), and after (~60 min) go-live (December 2021-July 2022). We also conducted pre- (March 2022-April 2022) and post-go live (May 2022-June 2022) HPT and employee surveys. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 24 interviews with HPTs (n=4), site leaders (n=2), and academic affiliates (n=2) using snowball sampling. We recruited HPTs in pre- (n=13) and post-go-live (n=10) surveys and employees in pre- (n=408) and post-go-live (n=458) surveys. APPROACH: We conducted interviews using a semi-structured guide and grounded prompts. We coded interviews and survey free text data using a priori and emergent codes, subsequently conducting thematic analysis. We conducted descriptive statistical analysis of survey responses and merged interview and survey data streams. KEY RESULTS: Our preliminary findings indicate that the EHR transition comprehensively affected HPT experiences, disrupting processes from onboarding and training to clinical care contributions and training-to-career retention. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding HPTs' challenges during EHR transitions is critical to effective training. Mitigating the identified barriers to HPT training and providing patient care may lessen their dissatisfaction and ensure quality patient care during EHR transitions.

"Everything's so Role-Specific": VA Employee Perspectives' on Electronic Health Record (EHR) Transition Implications for Roles and Responsibilities.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) transitions are increasingly widespread and often highly disruptive. It is imperative we learn from past experiences to anticipate and mitigate such disruptions. Veterans Affairs (VA) is undergoing a large-scale transition from its homegrown EHR (CPRS/Vista) to a commercial EHR (Cerner), creating a unique opportunity of shedding light on large-scale EHR-to-EHR transition challenges. OBJECTIVE: To explore one facet of the organizational impact of VA's EHR transition: its implications for employees' roles and responsibilities at the first VA site to implement Cerner Millennium EHR. DESIGN: As part of a formative evaluation of frontline staff experiences with VA's EHR transition, we conducted brief (~ 15 min) and full-length interviews (~ 60 min) with clinicians and staff at Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center in Spokane, WA, before, during, and after transition (July 2020-November 2021). PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 111 interviews with 26 Spokane clinicians and staff, recruited via snowball sampling. APPROACH: We conducted audio interviews using a semi-structured guide with grounded prompts. We coded interview transcripts using a priori and emergent codes, followed by qualitative content analysis. KEY RESULTS: Unlike VA's previous EHR, Cerner imposes additional restrictions on access to its EHR functionality based upon "roles" assigned to users. Participants described a mismatch between established institutional duties and their EHR permissions, unanticipated changes in scope of duties brought upon by the transition, as well as impediments to communication and collaboration due to different role-based views. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems should anticipate substantive impacts on professional workflows when EHR role settings do not reflect prior workflows. Such changes may increase user error, dissatisfaction, and patient care disruptions. To mitigate employee dissatisfaction and safety risks, health systems should proactively plan for and communicate about expected modifications and monitor for unintended role-related consequences of EHR transitions, while vendors should ensure accurate role configuration and assignment.

Mortality Conversations Between Male Veterans and Their Providers Prior to Dysvascular Lower Extremity Amputation.

BACKGROUND: Among patients facing lower extremity amputation due to dysvascular disease, the mortality risk is very high. Given this, as well as the importance of a patient-centered approach to medical care, informing patients about their possible risk of dying may be important during preoperative shared decision-making. The goal of this investigation was to gain an understanding of patient and provider experiences discussing mortality within the context of amputation within the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were performed with Veterans with peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes, vascular and podiatric surgeons, and physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians. Interviews were analyzed using team-based content analysis to identify themes related to amputation-level decisions. RESULTS: We interviewed 22 patients and 21 surgeons and physicians and identified 3 themes related to conversations around mortality: (1) both patients and providers report that mortality conversations are not common prior to amputation; (2) while most providers find value in mortality conversations, some express concerns around engaging in these discussions with patients; and (3) some patients perceive mortality conversations as unnecessary, but many are open to engaging in the conversation. CONCLUSIONS: Providers may benefit from introducing the topic with patients, including providing the context for why mortality conversations may be valuable, with the understanding that patients can always decline to participate should they not be interested or comfortable discussing this issue.

A mixed-methods evaluation of why an implementation trial failed to engage veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-focused psychotherapy.

An effectiveness trial found that telemedicine collaborative care for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) significantly increased engagement in trauma-focused psychotherapy (TFP) and improved PTSD symptoms. However, in a subsequent implementation trial, very few veterans enrolled in collaborative care initiated TFP. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to determine why veterans did not initiate TFP in the implementation trial. After conducting chart reviews of 1,071 veterans with PTSD enrolled in collaborative care, patients were categorized into four mutually exclusive TFP groups: TFP not discussed; TFP discussed, declined; TFP discussed, did not decline; and TFP initiated. We conducted semistructured interviews with 43 unique patients and 58 unique providers (i.e., care managers and mental health specialists). Almost half (48.6%) of the veterans had no documentation of discussing TFP with their care manager; another 28.9% discussed it but declined. Most veterans (77.1%) had an encounter with a mental health specialist, 36.8% of whom never discussed TFP, and 35.7% of whom discussed it but declined. Providers reported that many veterans were not able, willing, or ready to engage in TFP and that non-trauma-focused therapies were better aligned with their treatment goals. Veterans gave numerous reasons for not initiating TFP, including having bad prior experiences with TFP and wanting to avoid thinking about past traumatic experiences. Commonly cited reasons for noninitiation were providers never discussing TFP with veterans and veterans declining TFP after discussing it with their provider. Interventions, such as shared decision-making tools, may be needed to engage providers and patients in informed discussions about TFP.

Challenges to Shared Decision Making About Treatment of Advanced CKD: A Qualitative Study of Patients and Clinicians.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Greater understanding of the challenges to shared decision making about treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is needed to support implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged≥65 years with advanced CKD and their clinicians recruited from 3 medical centers participated in semi-structured interviews. In-depth review of patients' electronic medical records was also performed. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview transcripts and medical record notes were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (age 73±6 years, 66% male, 59% White) and 10 of their clinicians (age 52±12 years, 30% male, 70% White) participated in interviews. Four themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) competing priorities-patients and their clinicians tended to differ on when to prioritize CKD and dialysis planning above other personal or medical problems; (2) focusing on present or future-patients were more focused on living well now while clinicians were more focused on preparing for dialysis and future adverse events; (3) standardized versus individualized approach to CKD-although clinicians tried to personalize care recommendations to their patients, the patients perceived their clinicians as taking a monolithic approach to CKD that was predicated on clinical practice guidelines and medical literature rather than the patients' lived experiences with CKD and personal values and goals; and (4) power dynamics-patients described cautiously navigating a power differential in their therapeutic relationship with their clinicians whereas clinicians seemed less attuned to these power dynamics. LIMITATIONS: Thematic saturation was based on patient interviews. Themes presented might incompletely reflect clinicians' perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve shared decision making for treatment of advanced CKD will likely need to explicitly address differences between patients and their clinicians in approaches to decision making about treatment of advanced CKD and perceived power imbalances in the therapeutic relationship.

My Goals Are Not Their Goals: Barriers and Facilitators to Delivery of Patient-Centered Care for Patients with Multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care reflecting patient preferences and needs is integral to high-quality care. Individualized care is important for psychosocially complex or high-risk patients with multiple chronic conditions (i.e., multimorbidity), given greater potential risks of interventions and reduced benefits. These patients are increasingly prevalent in primary care. Few studies have examined provision of patient-centered care from the clinician perspective, particularly from primary care physicians serving in integrated, patient-centered medical home settings within the US Veterans Health Administration. OBJECTIVE: We sought to clarify facilitators and barriers perceived by primary care physicians in the Veterans Health Administration to delivering patient-centered care for high-risk or complex patients with multimorbidity. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews from April to July 2020 among physicians across 20 clinical sites. Findings were analyzed with deductive content analysis based on conceptual models of patient-centeredness and hierarchical factors affecting care delivery. PARTICIPANTS: Of 23 physicians interviewed, most were female (n = 14/23, 61%), serving in hospital-affiliated outpatient clinics (n = 14/23, 61%). Participants had a mean of 21 (SD = 11.3) years of experience. KEY RESULTS: Facilitators included the following: effective physician-patient communication to individualize care, prioritize among multiple needs, and elicit goals to improve patient engagement; access to care, enabled by interdisciplinary teams, and dictating personalized care planning; effortful but worthwhile care coordination and continuity; meeting complex needs through effective teamwork; and integrating medical and non-medical care aspects in recognition of patients' psychosocial contexts. Barriers included the following: intra- and interpersonal (e.g., perceived patient reluctance to engage in care); organizational (e.g., limited encounter time); and community or policy impediments (e.g., state decisional capacity laws) to patient-centered care. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceived individual physician-patient interactions were the greatest facilitators or barriers to patient-centered care. Efforts to increase primary care patient-centeredness for complex or high-risk patients with multimorbidity could focus on targeting physician-patient communication and reducing interpersonal conflict.

Interventional cardiologists' perceptions of percutaneous coronary intervention quality measurement and feedback.

BACKGROUND: Interventional cardiologists receive feedback on their clinical care from a variety of sources including registry-based quality measures, case conferences, and informal peer interactions. However, the impact of this feedback on clinical care is unclear. METHODS: We interviewed interventional cardiologists regarding the use of feedback to improve their care of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients. Interviews were assessed with template analysis using deductive and inductive techniques. RESULTS: Among 20 interventional cardiologists from private, academic, and Department of Veterans Affairs practice, 85% were male, 75% performed at least 100 PCIs annually, and 55% were in practice for 5 years or more. All reported receiving feedback on their practice, including formal quality measures and peer learning activities. Many respondents were critical of quality measure reporting, citing lack of trust in outcomes measures and poor applicability to clinical care. Some respondents reported the use of process measures such as contrast volume and fluoroscopy time for benchmarking their performance. Case conferences and informal peer feedback were perceived as timelier and more impactful on clinical care. Respondents identified facilitators of successful feedback interventions including transparent processes, respectful and reciprocal peer relationships, and integration of feedback into collective goals. Hierarchy and competitive environments inhibited useful feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial resources dedicated to performance measurement and feedback for PCI, interventional cardiologists perceive existing quality measures to be of only modest value for improving clinical care. Catherization laboratories should seek to integrate quality measures into a holistic quality program that emphasizes peer learning, collective goals and mutual respect.

Perspectives on Conservative Care in Advanced Kidney Disease: A Qualitative Study of US Patients and Family Members.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Little is known about perceptions of conservative care among patients with advanced kidney disease in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study using cognitive interviewing about attitudes regarding conservative care using decision aids on treatments for advanced kidney disease developed outside the United States. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 14 patients 75 years or older with advanced kidney disease, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate≤20mL/min/1.73m2 and not receiving maintenance dialysis, and 6 of their family members. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Thematic analysis of participants' reactions to descriptions of conservative care taken from various clinical care decision aids. RESULTS: Participants were mostly White (n=15) and had at least some college education (n=16). Four themes emerged from analysis of interviews: (1) core elements of conservative care: aspects of conservative care that were appealing to participants included a whole-person, team-based, and structured approach to care that focused on symptom management, maintaining current lifestyle, and managing health setbacks; (2) importance of how conservative care is framed: participants were more receptive to conservative care when this was framed as an active rather than passive treatment approach and were receptive to statements of uncertainty about future course of illness and prognosis; (3) an explicit approach to shared decision making: participants believed decisions about conservative care and dialysis should address considerations about risk and benefits of treatment options, family and clinician perspectives, and patients' goals, values, and preferences; and (4) relationship between conservative care and dialysis: although conservative care models outside the United States are generally intended to serve as an alternative to dialysis, participants' comments implied that they did not see conservative care and dialysis as mutually exclusive. LIMITATIONS: Themes identified may not generalize to the broader population of US patients with advanced kidney disease and their family members. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were favorably disposed to a whole-person multidisciplinary approach to conservative care, especially when framed as an active treatment approach. Models of conservative care excluding the possibility of dialysis were less embraced, suggesting that current models will require adaptation to meet the needs of US patients and their families.

Primary Care and Mental Health Prescribers, Key Clinical Leaders, and Clinical Pharmacist Specialists' Perspectives on Opioids and Benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVE: Due to increased risks of overdose fatalities and injuries associated with coprescription of opioids and benzodiazepines, healthcare systems have prioritized deprescribing this combination. Although prior work has examined providers' perspectives on deprescribing each medication separately, perspectives on deprescribing patients with combined use is unclear. We examined providers' perspectives on coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines and identified barriers and facilitators to deprescribing. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: One multisite Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system in the United States of America. SUBJECTS: Primary care and mental health prescribers, key clinical leaders, clinical pharmacist specialists (N = 39). METHODS: Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes were identified iteratively, through a multidisciplinary team-based process. RESULTS: Analyses identified four themes related to barriers and facilitators to deprescribing: inertia, prescriber self-efficacy, feasibility of deprescribing/tapering, and promoting deprescribing, as well as a fifth theme, consequences of deprescribing. Results highlighted the complexity of deprescribing when multiple prescribers are involved, a need for additional support and time, and concerns about patients' reluctance to discontinue these medications. Facilitators included agreement with the goal of deprescribing and fear of negative consequences if medications are continued. Providers spoke to how deprescribing efforts impaired patient-provider relationships and informed their decisions not to start patients on these medications. CONCLUSIONS: Although providers agree with the goal, prescribers' belief in a limited deprescribing role, challenges with coordination among prescribers, concerns about insufficient time and patients' resistance to discontinuing these medications need to be addressed for efforts to be successful.

De-implementing Inhaled Corticosteroids to Improve Care and Safety in COPD Treatment: Primary Care Providers' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is among the most common medical diagnoses among Veterans. More than 50% of Veterans diagnosed with mild-to-moderate COPD are prescribed inhaled corticosteroids despite recommendations for use restricted to patients with frequent exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: We explored primary care providers' experiences prescribing inhaled corticosteroids among patients with mild-to-moderate COPD as part of a quality improvement initiative. DESIGN: We used a sequential mixed-methods evaluation approach to understand factors influencing primary care providers' inhaled corticosteroid prescribing for patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. Participants were recruited to participate in qualitative interviews and structured surveys. PARTICIPANTS: We used a purposive sample of primary care providers from 13 primary care clinics affiliated with two urban Veteran Health Administration healthcare systems. MAIN MEASURES: Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. Qualitative findings informed a subsequent survey. Surveys were administered through REDCap and analyzed descriptively. Key qualitative and quantitative findings were compared. KEY RESULTS: Participants reported they were unaware of current evidence and recommendations for prescribing inhaled corticosteroids; for example, 46% of providers reported they were unaware of risks of pneumonia. Providers reported they are generally unable to keep up with the current literature due to the broad scope of primary care practice. We also found primary care providers may be reluctant to change inherited prescriptions, even if they thought inhaled corticosteroid therapy might not be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled corticosteroid prescribing in this patient population is partly due to primary care providers' lack of knowledge about the potential harms and availability of alternative therapies. Our findings suggest that efforts to expand access by increasing the number of prescribing providers a patient potentially sees could make it more difficult to de-implement harmful prescriptions. Our findings also corroborate prior findings that awareness of current evidence-based guidelines is likely an important part of medical overuse.

Comparable, but distinct: Perceptions of primary care provided by physicians and nurse practitioners in full and restricted practice authority states.

AIMS: To understand patients' and providers' perceptions of primary care delivered by nurse practitioners (NPs) in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. DESIGN: Qualitative exploratory study (in convergent mixed-methods design). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews in 2016 with primary care providers and patients from facilities in states with full and restricted practice authority for NPs. Patient sample based on reassignment to: (a) a NP; or (b) a different physician following an established physician relationship. Data were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 28 patients, 17 physicians and 14 NPs. We found: (a) NPs provided more holistic care than physicians; (b) patients were satisfied with NPs; and (c) providers' professional experience outweighed provider type. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' preferences for NPs (compared with prior physicians) contributed to perceptions of patient centredness. Similarities in providers' perceptions suggest NPs and physicians are both viable providers for primary care. IMPACT: Nurse Practitioners (NPs): practice authority Veterans Affairs Health care: nurse practitioners will continue to be a viable resource for primary care delivery United States Health care: challenges notions patients may not be satisfied with care provided by NPs and supports expanding their use to provide much-needed access to primary care services; expanding Full Practice Authority would allow states to provide acceptable primary care without diminishing patient or provider experiences.

Challenges to Educating Smokers About Lung Cancer Screening: a Qualitative Study of Decision Making Experiences in Primary Care.

We sought to qualitatively explore how those at highest risk for lung cancer, current smokers, experienced, understood, and made decisions about participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) after being offered in the target setting for implementation, routine primary care visits. Thirty-seven current smokers were identified within 4 weeks of being offered LCS at seven sites participating in the Veterans Health Administration Clinical Demonstration Project and interviewed via telephone using semi-structured qualitative interviews. Transcripts were coded by two raters and analyzed thematically using iterative inductive content analysis. Five challenges to smokers' decision-making lead to overestimated benefits and minimized risks of LCS: fear of lung cancer fixated focus on inflated screening benefits; shame, regret, and low self-esteem stemming from continued smoking situated screening as less averse and more beneficial; screening was mistakenly believed to provide general evaluation of lungs and reassurance was sought about potential damage caused by smoking; decision-making was deferred to providers; and indifference about numerical educational information that was poorly understood. Biased understanding of risks and benefits was complicated by emotion-driven, uninformed decision-making. Emotional and cognitive biases may interfere with educating and supporting smokers' decision-making and may require interventions tailored for their unique needs.

Accessing Care Through the Veterans Choice Program: The Veteran Experience.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Choice Program (VCP) was implemented to improve healthcare access by expanding healthcare options for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) enrollees. OBJECTIVES: To understand Veterans' experience accessing VCP care. DESIGN: Qualitative content analysis. SUBJECTS: Forty-seven veterans from three medical centers in three of the five VA geographical regions. APPROACH: We used semi-structured telephone interviews designed to elicit descriptions of Veterans' experiences. Data was analyzed using iterative, inductive, and deductive content analysis. Broad themes were identified based on representative interview responses. KEY RESULTS: We identified six themes: general impressions (concept and frustration); preferred source of care (institution, specialty, and individual provider); facilitators (VA staff facilitation and proactive Veterans); barriers (complexity, lack of responsiveness, lack of local providers, and poor coordination); perceived sources of VCP problems (learning curve, leadership and staff, and politics); and unintended negative impact (responsibility for costs of care and discontinued access to community care). DISCUSSION: Most Veterans who had received care through the VCP felt that it improved their access to care. However, accessing care through the VCP is a complex process that requires proactive Veterans and active support from the VA, third-party administrators, and availability of participating community providers. Veterans' abilities to navigate this process and the level of support provided varied widely. Even patients who did receive care through VCP found the process challenging. Greater support is needed for some Veterans to successfully access VCP care because Veterans who need care the most may be the least able to access it.

The Value of Community Health Workers in Diabetes Management in Low-Income Populations: A Qualitative Study.

To describe community health workers (CHWs) roles in a diabetes self-management intervention. Retrospective qualitative inductive analysis of open text home visit encounter form from Peer Support for Achieving Independence in Diabetes (Peer AID), a randomized controlled trial in which low-income individuals with poorly controlled diabetes received either CHW home visits or usual care. Following visits, CHWs completed encounter forms documenting the health goal of the visit, the self-management strategies discussed and participant concerns. 634 encounter reports were completed for the 145 intervention participants. CHW notes revealed three main obstacles to optimal disease control: gaps in diabetes knowledge and self-management skills; socioeconomic conditions; and the complexity of the healthcare system. CHWs helped participants overcome these obstacles through extensive, hands-on education, connecting participants to community resources, and assistance navigating the medical system. In addition, the CHWs offered uncomplicated accessibility and availability to their clients. CHWs can be a valuable asset for low-income patients with chronic health conditions who may require more support than what can provided in a typical primary care visit.

The experience of Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) members.

BACKGROUND: In April 2010, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) launched the Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) initiative to implement a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model. Few evaluations have addressed the effects of PCMH on health care professionals' experiences. PURPOSES: The aim of this study was to contribute to evaluation of the PACT initiative and the broader literature on PCMH by assessing respondents' experiences of implementing a PCMH model and becoming a teamlet. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A retrospective qualitative analysis of open-text responses in a survey fielded to all VHA Primary Care personnel (VHA Primary Care physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurse care managers, clinical associates, and administrative clerks) in May and June 2012 (approximately 2 years into the 5-year planned implementation of PACT) using deductive and inductive content analysis. The main measures were two open-response fields: "Is there anything else you would like us to relay to the VA leadership in Central Office?" and "Do you have any other comments or feedback on PACT?" The data consisted of free text responses of 3,868 survey participants who provided text for one or both of the open-response fields. FINDINGS: Although respondents viewed PACT positively as a model and reported it improved relationships with patients and increased patient satisfaction, they described multiple barriers to achieving functioning teamlets and unintended consequences, including reduced time with patients, increased participant burnout, and decreased team efficacy because of low-performing team members. A central theme related to staffing being insufficient for the new model. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Insufficient staffing of PCMH teams is a critical barrier to realizing the benefits of the new model. Frontline staff have concrete recommendations for other problems, such as using back-up teams to cover during absences, but that will require providing more opportunities for feedback from staff to be heard.