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.

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.

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.

Differences in use of Veterans Health Administration and non-Veterans Health Administration hospitals by rural and urban Veterans after access expansions.

PURPOSE: To examine changes in rural and urban Veterans' utilization of acute inpatient care in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and non-VHA hospitals following access expansion from the Veterans Choice Act, which expanded eligibility for VHA-paid community hospitalization. METHODS: Using repeated cross-sectional data of VHA enrollees' hospitalizations in 9 states (AZ, CA, CT, FL, LA, MA, NY, PA, and SC) between 2012 and 2017, we compared rural and urban Veterans' probability of admission in VHA and non-VHA hospitals by payer over time for elective and nonelective hospitalizations using multinomial logistic regression to adjust for patient-level sociodemographic features. We also used generalized linear models to compare rural and urban Veterans' travel distances to hospitals. FINDINGS: Over time, the probability of VHA-paid community hospitalization increased more for rural Veterans than urban Veterans. For elective inpatient care, rural Veterans' probability of VHA-paid admission increased from 2.9% (95% CI 2.6%-3.2%) in 2012 to 6.5% (95% CI 5.8%-7.1%) in 2017. These changes were associated with a temporal trend that preceded and continued after the implementation of the Veterans Choice Act. Overall travel distances to hospitalizations were similar over time; however, the mean distance traveled decreased from 39.2 miles (95% CI 35.1-43.3) in 2012 to 32.3 miles (95% CI 30.2-34.4) in 2017 for rural Veterans receiving elective inpatient care in VHA-paid hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited access to rural hospitals, these data demonstrate an increase in rural Veterans' use of non-VHA hospitals for acute inpatient care and a small reduction in distance traveled to elective inpatient services.

Making connections: nationwide implementation of video telehealth tablets to address access barriers in veterans.

BACKGROUND: Video telehealth technology has the potential to enhance access for patients with clinical, social, and geographic barriers to care. We evaluated the implementation of a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative to distribute tablets to high-need Veterans with access barriers. METHODS: In this mixed methods implementation study, we examined tablet adoption (ie, facility-level tablet distribution rates and patient-level tablet utilization rates) and reach (ie, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of tablet recipients) between 5/1/16 and 9/30/17. Concurrently, we surveyed 68 facility telehealth coordinators to determine the most common implementation barriers and facilitators, and then conducted interviews with telehealth coordinators and regional leadership to identify strategies that facilitated tablet distribution and use. RESULTS: 86 VA facilities spanning all 18 geographic regions, distributed tablets to 6 745 patients. Recipients had an average age of 56 years, 53% lived in rural areas, 75% had a diagnosed mental illness, and they had a mean (SD) of 5 (3) chronic conditions. Approximately 4 in 5 tablet recipients used the tablet during the evaluation period. In multivariate logistic regression, tablet recipients were more likely to use their tablets if they were older and had fewer chronic conditions. Implementation barriers included insufficient training, staffing shortages, and provider disinterest (described as barriers by 59%, 55%, and 33% of respondents, respectively). Site readiness assessments, local champions, licensure modifications, and use of mandates and incentives were identified as strategies that may influence widespread implementation of home-based video telehealth. CONCLUSION: VA's initiative to distribute video telehealth tablets to high-need patients appears to have successfully reached individuals with social and clinical access barriers. Implementation strategies that address staffing constraints and provider engagement may enhance the impact of such efforts.