Hypertension Control During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Cohort Study Among US Veterans.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine whether disruptions in follow-up intervals contributed to hypertension control. BACKGROUND: Disruptions in health care were widespread during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified a cohort of individuals with hypertension in both prepandemic (March 2019-February 2020) and pandemic periods (March 2020-February 2022) in the Veterans Health Administration. First, we calculated follow-up intervals between the last prepandemic and first pandemic blood pressure measurement during a primary care clinic visit, and between measurements in the prepandemic period. Next, we estimated the association between the maintenance of (or achieving) hypertension control and the period using generalized estimating equations. We assessed associations between follow-up interval and control separately for periods. Finally, we evaluated the interaction between period and follow-up length. RESULTS: A total of 1,648,424 individuals met the study inclusion criteria. Among individuals with controlled hypertension, the likelihood of maintaining control was lower during the pandemic versus the prepandemic (relative risk: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.93, 0.93). Longer follow-up intervals were associated with a decreasing likelihood of maintaining controlled hypertension in both periods. Accounting for follow-up intervals, the likelihood of maintaining control was 2% lower during the pandemic versus the prepandemic. For uncontrolled hypertension, the likelihood of gaining control was modestly higher during the pandemic versus the prepandemic (relative risk: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.01). The likelihood of gaining control decreased with follow-up length during the prepandemic but not pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, longer follow-up between measurements contributed to the lower likelihood of maintaining control. Those with uncontrolled hypertension were modestly more likely to gain control in the pandemic.

What Should Healthcare Systems Consider When Modernizing Call Centers? Early Considerations From the Veterans Health Administration.

GOAL: Growing numbers of hospitals and payers are using call centers to answer patients' clinical and administrative questions, schedule appointments, address billing issues, and offer supplementary care during public health emergencies and national disasters. In 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented VA Health Connect, an enterprise-wide initiative to modernize call centers. VA Health Connect is designed to improve the care experience with the convenience, flexibility, and simplicity of a single toll-free number connected to a range of 24/7 virtual services. The services are organized into four areas: administrative guidance for scheduling and general inquiries; pharmacy support for medication matters; clinical triage for evaluation of symptoms and recommended care; and virtual visits with providers for urgent and episodic care. Through a qualitative evaluation of VA Health Connect, we sought to identify the factors that affected the development of this program and to compile considerations to support the implementation of other enterprise-wide initiatives. METHODS: The evaluation team interviewed 29 clinical and administrative leads from across the VA. These leads were responsible for the modernization of their local service networks. PhD-level qualitative methodologists conducted the interviews, asking participants to reflect on barriers and facilitators to modernization and implementation. The team employed a rapid qualitative analytic approach commonly used in healthcare research to distill robust results. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A review of the early implementation of VA Health Connect found: (1) deadlines proved challenging but provided momentum for the initiative; (2) a balance between standardized processes and local adaptations facilitated implementation; (3) attention to staffing, hiring, and training of call center staff before implementation expedited workflows; (4) establishing national and local leadership commitment to the innovation from the onset increased team cohesion and efficacy; and (5) anticipating information technology infrastructure needs prevented delays to modernization and implementation. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Our findings suggest that healthcare systems would benefit from anticipating likely obstacles (e.g., delays in software implementations and negotiations with unions), thus providing ample time to secure leadership buy-in and identify local champions, communicating early and often, and supporting flexible implementation to meet local needs. VA leadership can use this evaluation to refine implementation, and it could also have important implications for regulators, federal health exchanges, insurers, and other healthcare systems when determining resource levels for call centers.

Veterans' Use of Telehealth for Veterans Health Administration Community Care Urgent Care During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has been an option for Veterans receiving urgent care through Veterans Health Administration Community Care (CC). OBJECTIVE: We assessed use, arrangements, Veteran decision-making, and experiences with CC urgent care delivered via telehealth. DESIGN: Convergent parallel mixed methods, combining multivariable regression analyses of claims data with semistructured Veteran interviews. SUBJECTS: Veterans residing in the Western United States and Hawaii, with CC urgent care claims March 1 to September 30, 2020. KEY RESULTS: In comparison to having in-person only visits, having a telehealth-only visit was more likely for Veterans who were non-Hispanic Black, were urban-dwelling, lived further from the clinic used, had a COVID-related visit, and did not require an in-person procedure. Predictors of having both telehealth and in-person (compared with in-person only) visits were other (non-White, non-Black) non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, urban-dwelling status, living further from the clinic used, and having had a COVID-related visit. Care arrangements varied widely; telephone-only care was common. Veteran decisions about using telehealth were driven by limitations in in-person care availability and COVID-related concerns. Veterans receiving care via telehealth generally reported high satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: CC urgent care via telehealth played an important role in providing Veterans with care access early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Use of telehealth differed by Veteran characteristics; lack of in-person care availability was a driver. Future work should assess for changes in telehealth use with pandemic progression, geographic differences, and impact on care quality, care coordination, outcomes, and costs to ensure Veterans' optimal and equitable access to care.

Short-term Effects of Canceled Elective Procedures Due to COVID-19: Evidence From the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether delayed or canceled elective procedures due to COVID-19 resulted in higher rates of ED utilization and/or increased mortality. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: On March 15, 2020, the VA issued a nationwide order to temporarily pause elective cases due to COVID-19. The effects of this disruption on patient outcomes are not yet known. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Surgical procedures canceled due to COVID-19 in 2020 (n = 3326) were matched to similar completed procedures in 2018 (n = 151,863) and 2019 (n = 146,582). Outcome measures included 30- and 90-day VA ED use and mortality in the period following the completed or canceled procedure. We used exact matching on surgical procedure category and nearest neighbor matching on patient characteristics, procedure year, and facility. RESULTS: Patients with elective surgical procedures canceled due to COVID-19 were no more likely to have an ED visit in the 30- [Difference: -4.3% pts; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.078, -0.007] and 90 days (-0.9% pts; 95% CI: -0.068, 0.05) following the expected case date. Patients with cancellations had no difference in 30- (Difference: 0.1% pts; 95% CI: -0.008, 0.01) and 90-day (Difference: -0.4% pts; 95% CI: -0.016, 0.009) mortality rates when compared to similar patients with similar procedures that were completed in previous years. CONCLUSIONS: The pause in elective surgical cases was not associated with short-term adverse outcomes in VA hospitals, suggesting appropriate surgical case triage and management. Further study will be essential to determine if the delayed cases were associated with longer-term effects.

Community Urgent Care Use Following Implementation of the Veterans Affairs Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act.

BACKGROUND: Effective June 6, 2019, Veterans Affairs (VA) began offering a new urgent care (UC) benefit that provides eligible Veterans with greater choice and access to care for the treatment of minor injuries and illnesses in their local communities. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to describe trends in UC use, identify predictors of UC benefit use, and understand the factors associated with community UC use versus VA emergency department (ED) or urgent care center (UCC) use. STUDY DESIGN: Using VA administrative data, this was a retrospective cross-sectional study of Veterans that were enrolled in VA in FY19. Veterans were classified into 3 groups: UC benefit users, benefit non-users, and VA ED/UCC users. METHODS: We used summary statistics to compare population characteristics across user groups. To determine whether predisposing, enabling, and need factors predicted UC benefit use and setting choice (community UCC vs. VA ED/UCC), 2 logistic regression models were fitted to assess odds of UC use. RESULTS: From June 6, 2019 through February 29, 2020, 138,305 Veterans made 175,821 community UC visits. The majority of visits were made by White males who were not subject to co-pays. The average cost to VA for UC visits was $132 (SD=$135). Upper respiratory infections were the most common reason for UC use. Being younger, female, and living farther from a VA ED/UCC was associated with greater UC benefit use compared with both benefit non-users and VA ED/UCC users. CONCLUSIONS: The new benefit expands Veteran access to UC services for low-acuity conditions.

Facilitators and barriers to the Lean Enterprise Transformation program at the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration piloted a nationwide Lean Enterprise Transformation program to optimize delivery of services to patients for high value care. PURPOSE: Barriers and facilitators to Lean implementation were evaluated. METHODS: Guided by the Lean Enterprise Transformation evaluation model, 268 interviews were conducted, with stakeholders across 10 Veterans Health Administration medical centers. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. RESULTS: Supporting the utility of the model, facilitators and barriers to Lean implementation were found in each of the Lean Enterprise Transformation evaluation model domains: (a) impetus to transform, (b) leadership commitment to quality, (c) improvement initiatives, (d) alignment across the organization, (e) integration across internal boundaries, (f) communication, (g) capability development, (h) informed decision making, (i) patient engagement, and (j) organization culture. In addition, three emergent themes were identified: staff engagement, sufficient staffing, and use of Lean experts (senseis). CONCLUSIONS: Effective implementation required staff engagement, strategic planning, proper scoping and pacing, deliberate coaching, and accountability structures. Visible, stable leadership drove Lean when leaders articulated a clear impetus to change, aligned goals within the facility, and supported middle management. Reliable data and metrics provided support for and evidence of successful change. Strategic early planning with continual reassessment translated into focused and sustained Lean implementation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Prominent best practices identified include (a) reward participants by broadcasting Lean successes; (b) provide time and resources for participation in Lean activities; (c) avoid overscoping projects; (d) select metrics that closely align with improvement processes; and (e) invest in coaches, informal champions, process improvement staff, and senior leadership to promote staff engagement and minimize turnover.

Lean Enterprise Transformation in VA: a national evaluation framework and study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The goal of Lean Enterprise Transformation (LET) is to go beyond simply using Lean tools and instead embed Lean principles and practices in the system so that it becomes a fundamental, collective mindset of the entire enterprise. The Veterans Engineering Resource Center (VERC) launched the Veterans Affairs (VA) LET pilot program to improve quality, safety, and the Veteran's experience. A national evaluation will examine the pilot program sites' implementation processes, outcomes and impacts, and abilities to improve LET adoption and sustainment. This paper describes the evaluation design for the VA LET national evaluation and describes development of a conceptual framework to evaluate LET specifically in healthcare settings. METHODS: A targeted literature review of Lean evaluation frameworks was performed to inform the development of the conceptual framework. Key domains were identified by a multidisciplinary expert group and then validated with key stakeholders. The national evaluation design will examine LET implementation using qualitative, survey, and quantitative methods at ten VA facilities. Qualitative data include site visits, interviews, and field observation notes. Survey data include an employee engagement survey to be administered to front-line staff at all pilot sites. Quantitative data include site-level quality improvement metrics collected by the Veterans Services Support Center. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods analyses will be conducted to examine implementation of LET strategic initiatives and variations in implementation success across sites. DISCUSSION: This national evaluation of a large-scale LET implementation effort will provide insights helpful to other systems interested in embarking on a Lean journey. Additionally, we created a multi-faceted conceptual framework to capture the specific features of a Lean healthcare organization. This framework will guide this evaluation and may be useful as an assessment tool for other organizations interested in implementing Lean principles at an enterprise level.

Preparing for Disaster: a Cross-Sectional Study of Social Connection and Gun Violence.

Living in communities with persistent gun violence is associated with negative social, behavioral, and health outcomes, analogous to those of a natural disaster. Taking a disaster-preparedness approach may identify targets for community-based action to respond to on-going gun violence. We assessed the relevance of adapting a disaster-preparedness approach to gun violence and, specifically, the relationship between perceived collective efficacy, its subscales of social cohesion and informal social control, and exposure to gun violence. In 2014, we conducted a cross-sectional study using a community-based participatory research approach in two neighborhoods in New Haven, CT, with high violent crime rates. Participants were ≥18 years of age and English speaking. We measured exposure to gun violence by adapting the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods Exposure to Violence Scale. We examined the association between perceived collective efficacy, measured by the Sampson Collective Efficacy Scale, and exposure to gun violence using multivariate modeling. We obtained 153 surveys (51% response rate, 14% refusal rate, and 35% non-response rate). Ninety-five percent reported hearing gunfire, 58% had friend or family member killed by gun violence, and 33% were physically present during a shooting. In the fully adjusted model, one standard deviation higher perceived collective efficacy was associated with lower reported exposure to gun violence (ß = -0.91, p < 0.001). We demonstrated that it is possible to activate community members and local officials to engage in gun violence research. A novel, community-based approach adapted from disaster-preparedness literature may be an effective framework for mitigating exposure to gun violence in communities with persistent gun violence.

Access to and accessibility of care for rural Veterans with disabilities: A qualitative evaluation of VA healthcare experiences.

BACKGROUND: Persons with disabilities experience significant physical, attitudinal, and communication-based barriers to accessing care. These challenges are exacerbated for rural-dwelling persons with disabilities. Although US Veterans experience disabilities at a higher rate than non-Veterans and are also more likely to dwell in rural locations, research examining the accessibility of VA care for rural Veterans with disabilities is limited. OBJECTIVES: With a focus on access and accessibility, we sought to explore the experiences of rural Veterans with disabilities who receive care at VA. METHODS: We conducted 30 qualitative interviews with rural-dwelling Veterans who experience at least one of three types of disabilities: hearing loss, vision loss, and mobility loss. Using a descriptive qualitative approach, we focused on creating a taxonomy of potential access barriers experienced among this population. RESULTS: Participants reported experiencing access barriers in five main areas, including policies and operational processes at VA clinics; navigating VA campuses and clinics; limited transportation and parking options; communicating with healthcare personnel and occasional negative interactions; and challenges due to pandemic-related changes in policies and procedures. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that Veterans with disabilities may experience a host of challenges and access barriers while navigating the VA Healthcare system. While these challenges have been reported among individuals with disabilities receiving care in other healthcare settings, they have not been assessed in VA specifically. Given its focus on caring for Veterans with service-aggravated conditions and its commitment to equity and inclusion, addressing access barriers among Veterans with disabilities should be a high priority for VA.

Community Emergency Care Use by Veterans in an Era of Expanding Choice.

Importance: Recently passed legislation aimed at improving access to care has considerably expanded options for veterans to receive emergency care in community, or non-Veterans Affairs (VA) settings. However, national trends in community emergency department (ED) use by veterans are unknown. Objective: To examine national, temporal trends in the frequencies and types of ED visits provided in community settings and explore the association between facilities' purchase of community care with facility and regional characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, observational cross-sectional study of ED visits over fiscal years (FY) 2016 to 2022. VA and community ED encounter data were obtained from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and the Office of Integrated Veteran Care. Participants were veterans receiving ED care at VA facilities or paid for by the VA in the community. Data were analyzed from June to September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measures included community ED visit volume, disposition, and payments over time. Also, the most common and costly ED visits were assessed. Negative binomial regression analysis examined associations between facility and regional characteristics and the rate of ED visits purchased in community settings relative to all ED visits. Results: There were 19 787 056 ED visits, predominantly at VA facilities (14 532 261 visits [73.4%]), made by 3 972 503 unique veterans from FY 2016 to 2022. The majority of ED users were male (3 576 120 individuals [90.0%]), and the median (IQR) age was 63 (48-73) years. The proportion of community ED visits increased in absolute terms from 18% in FY 2016 to 37% in FY 2022. Total community ED payments, adjusted to 2021 dollars, were $1.18 billion in FY 2016 and over $6.14 billion in FY 2022. The most common reasons for ED visits in the community were for nonspecific chest pain (305 082 visits [6%]), abdominal pain (174 836 visits [3%]), and septicemia (149 968 visits [3%]). The average proportion of ED visits purchased by a VA facility increased from 14% in FY 2016 to 32% by FY 2022. In multivariable analyses, facilities with greater ED volume and low-complexity facilities had higher expected rates of community emergency care than lower volume and high-complexity facilities, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: As veterans increasingly use community EDs for acute, unscheduled needs, attention to factors associated with veterans' use of acute care services in different settings are important to identify access barriers and to ensure veterans' health care needs are met.

Patient Safety Indicators at an Academic Veterans Affairs Hospital: Addressing Dual Goals of Clinical Care and Validity.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired complications add to patient morbidity and mortality, costs, length of stay, and negative patient experience. Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) are a validated and widely used metric to evaluate hospital administrative data on preventing these events. Although many studies have addressed PSI validity, few have aimed to reduce PSI through clinical care. The authors aimed to reduce PSI events by addressing both validity and clinical care. METHODS: Frontline clinicians used a deep dive template to provide input on all PSI cases, which were then reviewed by a PSI task force to identify performance gaps. After analyzing the frequency of gaps and cost-vs.-impact of potential solutions, five interventions were implemented to address the three most common, highly weighted PSIs: pressure ulcers, postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE), and postoperative sepsis. Clinical care interventions included increasing patient mobility by creating a specialized mobility technician position, skin care audits to prevent pressure ulcers, and increasing use of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Administrative interventions addressed improving clinician-coding concordance for sepsis and increasing documentation of comorbidities. RESULTS: After interventions, the number of PSI events for composite PSI, VTE, and sepsis decreased by 41.3% (p = 0.039), 85.2% (p = 0.0091), and 51.5% (p = 0.063), respectively, relative to the preintervention period. Pressure ulcers increased by 33.3% (p = 0.0091). CONCLUSION: Hospital complications cause substantial burden to hospitals, patients, and caregivers. Addressing administrative and clinical factors with targeted interventions led to reduction in composite PSI. Further efforts are needed locally to reduce the pressure ulcer PSI.

Emergency Department Use Among Combat and Non-Combat Post-9/11 Military Veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Most post-9/11 Veterans have completed at least 1 combat deployment-a known factor associated with adverse health outcomes. Such Veterans are known to have unmet health care needs, and the emergency department (ED) may serve as a safety net, yet little is known about whether combat status is associated with more frequent ED use. We sought to evaluate the relationship between combat status and frequency of ED use among post-9/11 Veterans and assess the most common reasons for ED visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study consisted of post-9/11 Veterans who enrolled in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) care between fiscal years (FYs) 2005 and 2015. Data were obtained from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Incidence rates for ED visits for combat and non-combat Veterans were compared from FY 2010 to 2019 using zero-inflated negative binomial regression. The most frequent reasons for ED visits were determined using International Classification of Diseases codes. This study was approved by the Stanford Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: Among 1.3 million Veterans included in analyses, 70.4% had deployed to a combat zone. The mean (SD) age of our cohort was 32.6 (5.0) years and 83.5% of Veterans were male. After controlling for other factors, combat Veterans had 1.84 times the rate of ED visits compared to non-combat Veterans (95% CI, 1.83-1.85). Only combat Veterans had a mental health-related ED visit (suicidal ideations) among the top 3 reasons for ED presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Those who deployed to a combat zone had a significantly higher rate of ED use compared to those who did not. Further, mental health-related ED diagnoses appeared to be more prevalent in combat Veterans. These findings highlight the unique health care needs faced by combat Veterans and emphasize the importance of tailored interventions and support services for this specific population.

Why Veterans Choose VA Versus non-VA Emergency Care: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: In ensuring the timely delivery of emergency care to Veterans, Veterans Affairs (VA) offers both emergency care services in its own facilities and, increasingly, purchases care for Veterans in non-VA (community) emergency department (ED) settings. Although in recent years emergency care coverage has become the single largest contributor to VA community care spending, no study to date has examined Veteran decision-making as it relates to ED setting choice. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe reasons why Veterans choose VA versus non-VA emergency care settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Veterans Health Administration data were used to identify geographically diverse Veterans who recently used emergency care. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews from December 2018 through March 2020 with 50 Veterans to understand the factors Veterans consider when deciding where to obtain ED care. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We conducted a directed content analysis of interview transcripts and developed a matrix to summarize and categorize each Veteran's decision-making process to compare participants and to identify common patterns. RESULTS: When choosing between VA and non-VA-EDs, Veterans described 3 distinct patterns of decision-making: (1) choosing the closest ED (often community) for acute conditions; (2) traveling farther for VA care due to preference and financial coverage; and (3) selecting VA when both types of ED care were equidistant. Perceptions of community resources, condition-specific needs, financial considerations, and personal preferences dominated the decision-making. For example, most Veterans (74%) rated their acuity as high, and self-perceived severity/urgency of their condition was the most cited factor influencing where Veterans decided to go for ED care. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative results help provide insight into how and why Veterans choose to seek emergency care. As the number of Veterans treated in non-VA EDs continues to rise, VA and non-VA ED providers as well as policy makers may benefit from understanding the challenges Veterans face when making this decision.

Navigating the boundaries of emergency department care: addressing the medical and social needs of patients who are homeless.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand interpersonal and systems-level factors relevant to delivering health care to emergency department (ED) patients who are homeless. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with emergency medicine residents from 2 residency programs, 1 in New York City and 1 in a medium-sized northeastern city, from February to September 2012. A team of researchers reviewed transcripts independently and coded text segments using a grounded theory approach. They reconciled differences in code interpretations and generated themes inductively. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively, and interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. RESULTS: From 23 interviews, 3 key themes emerged: (1) use of pattern recognition in identifying and treating patients who are homeless, (2) variations from standard ED care for patients who are homeless, and (3) tensions in navigating the boundaries of ED social care. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed practical and philosophical tensions in providing social care to patients in the ED who are homeless. Screening for homelessness in the ED and admission practices for patients who are homeless are important areas for future research and intervention with implications for health care costs and patient outcomes.

Use of hospital-based acute care among patients recently discharged from the hospital.

IMPORTANCE: Current efforts to improve health care focus on hospital readmission rates as a marker of quality and on the effectiveness of transitions in care during the period after acute care is received. Emergency department (ED) visits are also a marker of hospital-based acute care following discharge but little is known about ED use during this period. OBJECTIVES: To determine the degree to which ED visits and hospital readmissions contribute to overall use of acute care services within 30 days of discharge from acute care hospitals, to describe the reasons patients return for ED visits, and to describe these patterns among Medicare beneficiaries and those not covered by Medicare insurance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective study of patients aged 18 years or older (mean age: 53.4 years) who were discharged between July 1, 2008, and September 31, 2009, from acute care hospitals in 3 large, geographically diverse states (California, Florida, and Nebraska) with data recorded in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project state inpatient and ED databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 3 primary outcomes during the 30-day period after hospital discharge were ED visits not resulting in admission (treat-and-release encounters), hospital readmissions from any source, and a combined measure of ED visits and hospital readmissions termed hospital-based acute care. RESULTS: The final cohort included 5,032,254 index hospitalizations among 4,028,555 unique patients. In the 30 days following discharge, 17.9% (95% CI, 17.9%-18.0%) of hospitalizations resulted in at least 1 acute care encounter. Of these 1,233,402 postdischarge acute care encounters, ED visits comprised 39.8% (95% CI, 39.7%-39.9%). For every 1000 discharges, there were 97.5 (95% CI, 97.2-97.8) ED treat-and-release visits and 147.6 (95% CI, 147.3-147.9) hospital readmissions in the 30 days following discharge. The number of ED treat-and-release visits ranged from a low of 22.4 (95% CI, 4.6-65.4) encounters per 1000 discharges for breast malignancy to a high of 282.5 (95% CI, 209.7-372.4) encounters per 1000 discharges for uncomplicated benign prostatic hypertrophy. Among the highest volume discharges, the most common reason patients returned to the ED was always related to their index hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After discharge from acute care hospitals in 3 states, ED visits within 30 days were common among adults and accounted for 39.8% of postdischarge hospital-based acute care visits. Improving care transitions should focus not only on decreasing readmissions but also on ED visits.

Emergency department utilization and presenting chief complaints by Veterans living with dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Veteran persons living with dementia (PLWDs) have high acute care utilization. We aim to understand why PLWDs seek care in the emergency department (ED) and how their utilization differs from older Veterans with no dementia diagnosis. We demonstrate the use of a novel national chief complaint data set in the Veteran Affairs Health Care System. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of ED users 65 years or older as of FY2017. The primary outcome is presence of one or more ED visits in FYs 2017-2018 using a logistic regression model controlling for dementia and other variables. Secondary outcomes include counts of ED visits by disposition, Emergency Severity Index, chief complaints defined by a natural language processing program, and ED encounter diagnoses defined by primary International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10-CM) code. RESULTS: Our cohort of Veterans comprised 3,115,263 patients. Of those, 255,372 (8.2%) had a diagnosis of dementia. Logistic regression modeling demonstrated that dementia is a significant predictor of ED use (p < 0.0001), with PLWDs more likely to have an ED visit (odds ratio 1.96, 95% confidence interval 1.94-1.98). PLWDs were admitted at higher rates when accounting for age and acuity. Chief complaints that were more common among PLWDs included falls (6.7% dementia vs. 3.3% without dementia), weakness (3.6% vs. 2.2%), and abnormal mental state (2.2% vs. 0.4%). ICD-10-CM codes were largely similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reinforce that the ED is a common access point for Veterans with dementia. These patients require special consideration as they are more likely to visit the ED and be admitted. Our use of a novel national chief complaint data set suggests that they more commonly present with certain geriatric syndromes and nonspecific complaints. Further work is needed to determine whether these would warrant targeted interventions to improve quality of acute care.

Payer shifting after expansions in access to private care among veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether expanded access to Veterans Affairs (VA)-purchased care increased overall utilization or induced a shift from other payers to VA for emergency care among VA enrollees. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This study included all emergency department (ED) encounters in 2019 from hospitals in the state of New York. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a difference-in-differences analysis comparing VA enrollees to the general population before and after the implementation of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act in June 2019. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We included all ED visits with individuals aged 30 or older at the time of the encounter. Individuals were considered eligible for the policy change if they were enrolled with VA at the beginning of 2019. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of the 5,577,199 ED visits in the sample, 4.9% (n = 253,799) were made by VA enrollees. Of these, 44.9% of visits were paid by Medicare, 32.8% occurred in VA facilities, and 7% were paid by private health insurance. There was a 6.4% (2.91 percentage points; std. error = 0.18; p < 0.01) decrease in the proportion of ED visits paid by Medicare among VA enrollees relative to the general population after the implementation of the MISSION Act in June 2019. This decrease was larger for ED visits with a subsequent inpatient admission (-8.4%; 4.87 percentage points; std. error = 0.33; p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant change in the total volume of ED visits (0.06%; std. error = 0.08; p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging a novel dataset, we demonstrate that MISSION Act implementation coincided with a shift in the financing of non-VA ED visits from Medicare to VA without any increase in overall ED utilization. These findings have important implications for VA health care financing and delivery.

Medical advice lines offering on-demand access to providers reduced emergency department visits.

Instant access to clinicians through virtual care is designed to allow patients to receive care they need while avoiding high-cost visits in acute-care settings. This study investigates the effect of offering patients the option to instantly connect with emergency care providers instead of being referred to the emergency department (ED) following calls to a medical advice line. We used a staggered rollout design to assess the effects of implementing this program on key outcomes among Veterans Affairs enrollees. Analyzing over 1 million calls from 2019 to 2022, we found that access to a provider reduced the proportion of patients who subsequently visited the ED compared with those with access to the standard medical advice line (38% vs 36%). There was no significant difference observed in subsequent inpatient admissions or 30-day mortality. We found that a majority of callers (65%) achieved issue resolution or were directed to lower acuity settings for further evaluation. Although substantial direct cost savings were not evident, our findings demonstrate that on-demand access to a virtual provider can effectively decrease ED visits.

Veterans' Experiences With Accessing Community Emergency Care.

INTRODUCTION: Under current regulations, there are three separate authorities for which the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) can pay for emergency medical care received by Veterans in the community. The three VHA authorities have overlapping criteria and eligibility requirements that contribute to a complex and confusing landscape for Veterans when they obtain emergency care in the community. Given the intricacies in how VHA provides coverage for community emergency care and the desire to provide seamless Veteran-centric care, it is imperative to understand Veterans' experiences with navigating coverage for community emergency care. The purpose of this study was to elicit feedback from Veterans about their experiences with and perceptions of community emergency care coverage paid for by VHA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Veterans Health Administration data were used to identify geographically diverse Veterans who recently used emergency care. We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 50 Veterans to understand their VHA coverage and experiences with accessing community emergency care. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. We conducted directed content analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Veterans emphasized three major concerns with navigating community emergency care: (1) they lack information about benefits and eligibility when they need it most, (2) they require assistance with medical billing to avoid financial hardship and future delays in care, and (3) they desire multimodal communication about VHA policies or updates in emergency coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the challenges Veterans experience in understanding VHA coverage for community emergency care. Feedback suggests that improving information, support, and communication may help Veterans make timely, informed decisions when experiencing unexpected illness or injury.