Nurse Leader Perceptions of Data in the Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Evaluation.

Healthcare systems and nursing leaders aim to make evidence-based nurse staffing decisions. Understanding how nurses use and perceive available data to support safe staffing can strengthen learning healthcare systems and support evidence-based practice, particularly given emerging data availability and specific nursing challenges in data usability. However, current literature offers sparse insight into the nature of data use and challenges in the inpatient nurse staffing management context. We aimed to investigate how nurse leaders experience using data to guide their inpatient staffing management decisions in the Veterans Health Administration, the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. We conducted semistructured interviews with 27 Veterans Health Administration nurse leaders across five management levels, using a constant comparative approach for analysis. Participants primarily reported using data for quality improvement, organizational learning, and organizational monitoring and support. Challenges included data fragmentation, unavailability and unsuitability to user need, lack of knowledge about available data, and untimely reporting. Our findings suggest that prioritizing end-user experience and needs is necessary to better govern evidence-based data tools for improving nursing care. Continuous nurse leader involvement in data governance is integral to ensuring high-quality data for end-user nurses to guide their decisions impacting patient care.

Prevalence of Effective Audit-and-Feedback Practices in Primary Care Settings: A Qualitative Examination Within Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to uncover and catalog the various practices for delivering and disseminating clinical performance in various Veterans Affairs (VA) locations and to evaluate their quality against evidence-based models of effective feedback as reported in the literature. BACKGROUND: Feedback can enhance clinical performance in subsequent performance episodes. However, evidence is clear that the way in which feedback is delivered determines whether performance is harmed or improved. METHOD: We purposively sampled 16 geographically dispersed VA hospitals based on high, low, consistently moderate, and moderately average highly variable performance on a set of 17 outpatient clinical performance measures. We excluded four sites due to insufficient interview data. We interviewed four key personnel from each location (n = 48) to uncover effective and ineffective audit and feedback strategies. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed qualitatively using a framework-based content analysis approach to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: We identified 102 unique strategies used to deliver feedback. Of these strategies, 64 (62.74%) have been found to be ineffective according to the audit-and-feedback research literature. Comparing features common to effective (e.g., individually tailored, computerized feedback reports) versus ineffective (e.g., large staff meetings) strategies, most ineffective strategies delivered feedback in meetings, whereas strategies receiving the highest effectiveness scores delivered feedback via visually understood reports that did not occur in a group setting. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that current practices are leveraging largely ineffective feedback strategies. Future research should seek to identify the longitudinal impact of current feedback and audit practices on clinical performance. APPLICATION: Feedback in primary care has little standardization and does not follow available evidence for effective feedback design. Future research in this area is warranted.

Asking the Patient About Patient-Centered Medical Homes: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: What patients perceive and experience within a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is an understudied area, and to date, the patient perspective has not been an integral component of existing PCMH measurement standards. However, upcoming guidelines necessitate the use of patient-reported experiences and satisfaction in evaluations of practice and provider performance. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patients' experiences with care after PCMH adoption and their understanding and perceptions of the PCMH model and its key components, and to compare responses by degree of practice-level PCMH adoption and patient race/ethnicity. DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with diabetes and/or hypertension (n = 48). APPROACH: We surveyed and ranked all PCMH adult primary care practices affiliated with one academic medical center with at least three providers (n = 23), using an instrument quantifying the degree of PCMH adoption. We purposively sampled minority and non-minority patients from the four highest-ranked and four lowest-ranked PCMH-adopting practices to determine whether responses varied by degree of PCMH adoption or patient race/ethnicity. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with patients about their experiences with care and their perceptions and understanding of key PCMH domains. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo 10 for coding and analysis, using a modified grounded theory approach. KEY RESULTS: We found that patients uniformly lacked awareness of the PCMH concept, and the vast majority perceived no PCMH-related structural changes, regardless of the degree of practice-reported PCMH adoption or the patient's race/ethnicity. Despite this lack of awareness, patients overwhelmingly reported positive relationships with their provider and positive overall experiences. CONCLUSIONS: As we continue to redesign primary care delivery with an emphasis on patient experience measures as performance metrics, we need to better understand what, if any, aspects of practice structure relate to patient experience and satisfaction with care.

How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research.

BACKGROUND: The Department of Health and Human Services recently called for public comment on human subjects research protections. OBJECTIVE: To assess variability in reviews across institutional review boards (IRBs) for a multisite, minimal-risk trial of financial incentives for evidence-based hypertension care and to quantify the effect of review determinations on site participation, budget, and timeline. DESIGN: A natural experiment occurring from multiple IRBs reviewing the same protocol for a multicenter trial (May 2005 to October 2007). PARTICIPANTS: 25 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. MEASUREMENTS: Number of submissions, time to approval, and costs were evaluated; patient complexity, academic affiliation, size, and location (urban or rural) between participating and nonparticipating VA medical centers were compared. RESULTS: Of 25 eligible VA medical centers, 6 did not meet requirements for IRB review and 2 declined to participate. Of 17 applications, 14 were approved. The process required 115 submissions, lasted 27 months, and cost close to $170 000 in staff salaries. One IRB's concern about incentivizing a particular medication recommended by national guidelines prompted a change in our design to broaden our inclusion criteria beyond uncomplicated hypertension. The change required amending the protocol at 14 sites to preserve internal validity. The IRBs that approved the protocol classified it as minimal risk. The 12 sites that ultimately participated in the trial were more likely to be urban and academically affiliated and to care for more complex patients, which limits the external validity of the trial's findings. LIMITATION: Because data came from a single multisite trial in the VA system that uses a 2-stage review process, generalizability is limited. CONCLUSION: Complying with IRB requirements for a minimal-risk study required substantial resources and threatened the study's internal and external validity. The current review of regulatory requirements may address some of these problems.

Study protocol: maintaining preventive care during public health emergencies through effective coordination.

BACKGROUND: Screening lies at the heart of preventive care. However, COVID-19 dramatically disrupted routine screening efforts, resulting in excess mortality not directly attributable to COVID-19. Screening rates during COVID varied markedly by facility and clinical condition, suggesting susceptibilities in screening and referral process workflow. To better understand these susceptibilities and identify new practices to mitigate interrupted care, we propose a qualitative study comparing facilities that exhibited high, low, and highly variable performance (respectively) in screening rates before and during the pandemic. We will be guided by Weaver et al.'s multi-team systems (MTS) model of coordination, using cancer and mental health screening rates as exemplars. METHOD: Qualitative analysis of interviews and focus groups with primary care personnel, leadership, and patients at 10 VA medical centers. We will select sites based on rurality, COVID-19 caseload at the beginning of the pandemic, and performance on five outpatient clinical performance indicators of cancer and mental health screening. Sites will be categorized into one of five screening performance groups: high performers, low performers, improvers, plummeters, and highly variable. We will create process maps for each performance measure to create a workflow baseline and then interview primary care leadership to update the map at each site. We will clinician conduct focus groups to elicit themes regarding clinician coordination patterns (e.g., handoffs), strategies, and barriers/facilitators to screening during COVID. We will also conduct patient interviews to examine their screening experience during this period, for context. All interviews and focus groups will be audio-recorded, transcribed, and enhanced by field notes. We will analyze clinician transcripts and field notes using iterative, rapid analysis. Patient interviews will be analyzed using inductive/deductive content analysis. DISCUSSION: Our study represents a unique opportunity to inform the multi-team systems literature by identifying specific forms of information exchange, collective problem solving, and decision-making associated with higher and improved clinical performance. Specifically, our study aims to detect the specific points in the screening and referral process most susceptible to disruption and coordination processes that, if changed, will yield the highest value. Findings apply to future pandemics or any event with the potential to disrupt care.

Mental models of audit and feedback in primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback has been shown to be instrumental in improving quality of care, particularly in outpatient settings. The mental model individuals and organizations hold regarding audit and feedback can moderate its effectiveness, yet this has received limited study in the quality improvement literature. In this study we sought to uncover patterns in mental models of current feedback practices within high- and low-performing healthcare facilities. METHODS: We purposively sampled 16 geographically dispersed VA hospitals based on high and low performance on a set of chronic and preventive care measures. We interviewed up to 4 personnel from each location (n = 48) to determine the facility's receptivity to audit and feedback practices. Interview transcripts were analyzed via content and framework analysis to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: We found high variability in the mental models of audit and feedback, which we organized into positive and negative themes. We were unable to associate mental models of audit and feedback with clinical performance due to high variance in facility performance over time. Positive mental models exhibit perceived utility of audit and feedback practices in improving performance; whereas, negative mental models did not. CONCLUSIONS: Results speak to the variability of mental models of feedback, highlighting how facilities perceive current audit and feedback practices. Findings are consistent with prior research  in that variability in feedback mental models is associated with lower performance.; Future research should seek to empirically link mental models revealed in this paper to high and low levels of clinical performance.

Reports of unintended consequences of financial incentives to improve management of hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Given the increase in financial-incentive programs nationwide, many physicians and physician groups are concerned about potential unintended consequences of providing financial incentives to improve quality of care. However, few studies examine whether actual unintended consequences result from providing financial incentives to physicians. We sought to document the extent to which the unintended consequences discussed in the literature were observable in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of financial incentives. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative observational study nested within a larger RCT of financial incentives to improve hypertension care. We conducted 30-minute telephone interviews with primary care personnel at facilities participating in the RCT housed at12 geographically dispersed Veterans Affairs Medical Centers nationwide. Participants answered questions about unintended effects, clinic team dynamics, organizational impact on care delivery, study participation. We employed a blend of inductive and deductive qualitative techniques for analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-five participants were recruited from RCT enrollees and personnel not enrolled in the larger RCT, plus one primary care leader per site. RESULTS: Emergent themes included possible patient harm, emphasis on documentation over improving care, reduced professional morale, and positive spillover. All discussions of unintended consequences involving patient harm were only concerns, not actual events. Several unintended consequences concerned ancillary initiatives for quality improvement (e.g., practice guidelines and performance measurement systems) rather than financial incentives. CONCLUSIONS: Many unintended consequences of financial incentives noted were either only concerns or attributable to ancillary quality-improvement initiatives. Actual unintended consequences included improved documentation of care without necessarily improving actual care, and positive unintended consequences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00302718.

Recruiting clinical personnel as research participants: a framework for assessing feasibility.

Increasing numbers of research studies test interventions for clinicians in addition to or instead of interventions for patients. Although previous studies have enumerated barriers to patient enrolment in clinical trials, corresponding barriers have not been identified for enrolling clinicians as subjects. We propose a framework of metrics for evidence-based estimation of time and resources required for recruiting clinicians as research participants, and present an example from a federally funded study. Our framework proposes metrics for tracking five steps in the recruitment process: gaining entry into facilities, obtaining accurate eligibility and contact information, reaching busy clinicians, assessing willingness to participate, and scheduling participants for data collection. We analyzed recruitment records from a qualitative study exploring performance feedback at US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs); five recruiters sought to reach two clinicians at 16 facilities for a one-hour interview. Objective metrics were calculable for all five steps; metric values varied considerably across facilities. Obtaining accurate contact information slowed down recruiting the most. We conclude that successfully recruiting even small numbers of employees requires considerable resourcefulness and more calendar time than anticipated. Our proposed framework provides an empirical basis for estimating research-recruitment timelines, planning subject-recruitment strategies, and assessing the research accessibility of clinical sites.

Financial incentives and physician commitment to guideline-recommended hypertension management.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of financial incentives on physician goal commitment to guideline-recommended hypertension care. STUDY DESIGN: Clinic-level cluster-randomized trial with 4 arms: individual, group, or combined incentives, and control. METHODS: A total of 83 full-time primary care physicians at 12 Veterans Affairs medical centers completed web-based surveys measuring their goal commitment to guideline-recommended hypertension care every 4 months and telephone interviews at months 8 and 16. Intervention arm participants received performance-based incentives every 4 months for 5 periods. All participants received guideline education at baseline and audit and feedback every 4 months. RESULTS: Physician goal commitment did not vary over time or across arms. Participants reported patient nonadherence was a perceived barrier and consistent follow-up was a perceived facilitator to successful hypertension care, suggesting that providers may perceive hypertension management as more of a patient responsibility (external locus of control). CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives may constitute an insufficiently strong intervention to influence goal commitment when providers attribute performance to external forces beyond their control.