Impact of Referring High-Risk Patients to Intensive Outpatient Primary Care Services: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare systems have implemented intensive outpatient primary care programs with the hopes of reducing healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted primary care intensive management (PIM) for patients at high risk for hospitalization or death, or "high-risk." We evaluated whether a referral model would decrease high-risk patient costs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using a quasi-experimental design comparing 456 high-risk patients referred to PIM from October 2017 to September 2018 to 415 high-risk patients matched on propensity score. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans in the top 10th percentile of risk for 90-day hospitalization or death and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit. INTERVENTION: PIM consisted of interdisciplinary teams that performed comprehensive assessments, intensive case management, and care coordination services. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in VHA and non-VHA outpatient utilization, inpatient admissions, and costs 12 months pre- and post-index date. KEY RESULTS: Of the 456 patients referred to PIM, 301 (66%) enrolled. High-risk patients referred to PIM had a marginal reduction in ED visits (- 0.7; [95% CI - 1.50 to 0.08]; p = 0.08) compared to propensity-matched high-risk patients; overall outpatient costs were similar. High-risk patients referred to PIM had similar number of medical/surgical hospitalizations (- 0.2; [95% CI, - 0.6 to 0.16]; p = 0.2), significant increases in length of stay (6.36; [CI, - 0.01 to 12.72]; p = 0.05), and higher inpatient costs ($22,628, [CI, $3587 to $41,669]; p = 0.02) than those not referred to PIM. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: VHA intensive outpatient primary care was associated with higher costs. Referral to intensive case management programs targets the most complex patients and may lead to increased utilization and costs, particularly in an integrated healthcare setting with robust patient-centered medical homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PIM 2.0: Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) Intensive Management (PIM) Project (PIM2). NCT04521816. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04521816.

Associations Between Primary Care Providers and Staff-Reported Access Management Challenges and Patient Perceptions of Access.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Optimizing patients' access to primary care is critically important but challenging. In a national survey, we asked primary care providers and staff to rate specific care processes as access management challenges and assessed whether clinics with more of these challenges had worse access outcomes. METHODS: Study design: Cross sectional. National Primary Care Personnel Survey (NPCPS) (2018) participants included 6210 primary care providers (PCPs) and staff in 813 clinics (19% response rate) and 158,645 of their patients. We linked PCP and staff ratings of access management challenges to veterans' perceived access from 2018-2019 Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients-Patient Centered Medical Home (SHEP-PCMH) surveys (35.6% response rate). MAIN MEASURES: The NPCPS queried PCPs and staff about access management challenges. The mean overall access challenge score was 28.6, SD 6.0. The SHEP-PCMH access composite asked how often veterans reported always obtaining urgent appointments same/next day; routine appointments when desired and having medical questions answered during office hours. ANALYTIC APPROACH: We aggregated PCP and staff responses to clinic level, and use multi-level, multivariate logistic regressions to assess associations between clinic-level access management challenges and patient perceptions of access. We controlled for veteran-, facility-, and area-level characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Veterans at clinics with more access management challenges (> 75th percentile) had a lower likelihood of reporting always receiving timely urgent care appointments (AOR: .86, 95% CI: .78-.95); always receiving routine appointments (AOR: .74, 95% CI: .67-.82); and always reporting same- or next-day answers to telephone questions (AOR: .79, 95% CI: .70-.90) compared to veterans receiving care at clinics with fewer (< 25th percentile) challenges. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Findings show a strong relationship between higher levels of access management challenges and worse patient perceptions of access. Addressing access management challenges, particularly those associated with call center communication, may be an actionable path for improved patient experience.

Types of Engagement Strategies to Engage High-Risk Patients in VA.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare systems seek to improve care for complex high-risk patients, but engaging such patients to actively participate in their healthcare can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe types of patient engagement strategies reported as successfully deployed by providers/teams and experienced by patients in a Veterans Health Administration (VA) intensive primary care (IPC) pilot program. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 29 VA IPC staff (e.g., physicians, nurses, psychologists) and 51 patients who had at least four IPC team encounters. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach. RESULTS: The engagement strategies successfully deployed by the IPC providers/teams could be considered either more "facilitative," i.e., facilitated by and dependent on staff actions, or more "self-sustaining," i.e., taught to patients, thus cultivating their ongoing patient self-care. Facilitative strategies revolved around enhancing patient access and coordination of care, trust-building, and addressing social determinants of health. Self-sustaining strategies were oriented around patient empowerment and education, caregiver and/or community support, and boundaries and responsibilities. When patients described their experiences with the "facilitative" strategies, many discussed positive proximal outcomes (e.g., increased access to healthcare providers). Self-sustaining strategies led to positive (self-reported) longer-term clinical outcomes, such as behavior change. CONCLUSION: We identified two categories of strategies for successfully engaging complex, high-risk patients: facilitative and self-sustaining. Intensive primary care program leaders may consider thoughtfully building "self-sustaining" engagement strategies into program development. Future research can confirm their effectiveness in improving health outcomes.

Learning from national implementation of the Veterans Affairs Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program for improving access to care: protocol for a six year evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program aims to improve patient access to care by implementing time-limited, regionally based primary or mental health staffing support to cover local staffing vacancies. VA's Office of Primary Care (OPC) designed CRH to support more than 1000 geographically disparate VA outpatient sites, many of which are in rural areas, by providing virtual contingency clinical staffing for sites experiencing primary care and mental health staffing deficits. The subsequently funded CRH evaluation, carried out by the VA Primary Care Analytics Team (PCAT), partnered with CRH program leaders and evaluation stakeholders to develop a protocol for a six-year CRH evaluation. The objectives for developing the CRH evaluation protocol were to prospectively: 1) identify the outcomes CRH aimed to achieve, and the key program elements designed to achieve them; 2) specify evaluation designs and data collection approaches for assessing CRH progress and success; and 3) guide the activities of five geographically dispersed evaluation teams. METHODS: The protocol documents a multi-method CRH program evaluation design with qualitative and quantitative elements. The evaluation's overall goal is to assess CRH's return on investment to the VA and Veterans at six years through synthesis of findings on program effectiveness. The evaluation includes both observational and quasi-experimental elements reflecting impacts at the national, regional, outpatient site, and patient levels. The protocol is based on program evaluation theory, implementation science frameworks, literature on contingency staffing, and iterative review and revision by both research and clinical operations partners. DISCUSSION: Health systems increasingly seek to use data to guide management and decision-making for newly implemented clinical programs and policies. Approaches for planning evaluations to accomplish this goal, however, are not well-established. By publishing the protocol, we aim to increase the validity and usefulness of subsequent evaluation findings. We also aim to provide an example of a program evaluation protocol developed within a learning health systems partnership.

Burnout, employee engagement, and changing organizational contexts in VA primary care during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic involved a rapid change to the working conditions of all healthcare workers (HCW), including those in primary care. Organizational responses to the pandemic, including a shift to virtual care, changes in staffing, and reassignments to testing-related work, may have shifted more burden to these HCWs, increasing their burnout and turnover intent, despite their engagement to their organization. Our objectives were (1) to examine changes in burnout and intent to leave rates in VA primary care from 2017-2020 (before and during the pandemic), and (2) to analyze how individual protective factors and organizational context affected burnout and turnover intent among VA primary care HCWs during the early months of the pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed individual- and healthcare system-level data from 19,894 primary care HCWs in 139 healthcare systems in 2020. We modeled potential relationships between individual-level burnout and turnover intent as outcomes, and individual-level employee engagement, perceptions of workload, leadership, and workgroups. At healthcare system-level, we assessed prior-year levels of burnout and turnover intent, COVID-19 burden (number of tests and deaths), and the extent of virtual care use as potential determinants. We conducted multivariable analyses using logistic regression with standard errors clustered by healthcare system controlled for individual-level demographics and healthcare system complexity. RESULTS: In 2020, 37% of primary care HCWs reported burnout, and 31% reported turnover intent. Highly engaged employees were less burned out (OR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.52-0.63) and had lower turnover intent (OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.57-0.68). Pre-pandemic healthcare system-level burnout was a major predictor of individual-level pandemic burnout (p = 0.014). Perceptions of reasonable workload, trustworthy leadership, and strong workgroups were also related to lower burnout and turnover intent (p < 0.05 for all). COVID-19 burden, virtual care use, and prior year turnover were not associated with either outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Employee engagement was associated with a lower likelihood of primary care HCW burnout and turnover intent during the pandemic, suggesting it may have a protective effect during stressful times. COVID-19 burden and virtual care use were not related to either outcome. Future research should focus on understanding the relationship between engagement and burnout and improving well-being in primary care.

The Unrecognized Role of VA Call Center and Primary Care Clerical Staff in Assisting Patients with Obtaining Needed Care.

BACKGROUND: VA clerks, or medical support assistants (MSAs), are a critical part of patients' primary care (PC) experiences and are often the first points of contact between Veterans and the healthcare system. Despite the important role they might play in assisting Veterans with accessing care, research is lacking on the specific tasks they perform and what training and preparation they receive to perform their roles. OBJECTIVE: Our primary aim in this study was to document MSA perceptions of their roles, the tasks they undertake helping Veterans with accessing healthcare, and additional training they may need to optimally perform their role. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews with VA call center and PC MSAs (n=29) collected as part of in-person site visits from August to October 2019. PARTICIPANTS: MSAs at administrative call centers and primary care clinics in one large VA regional network representing 8 healthcare systems serving nearly 1.5 million Veterans. KEY RESULTS: We identified three key findings from the interviews: (1) MSAs perform tasks in addition to scheduling that help Veterans obtain needed care; (2) MSAs may not be fully prepared for their roles as first points of contact; and (3) low status and lack of recognition of the important and complex tasks performed by MSAs contribute to high turnover. CONCLUSIONS: As healthcare systems continue expanding virtual access, the roles of administrative call center and PC MSAs as first points of contact will be increasingly important for shaping patient experiences. Our research suggests that MSAs may need better training and preparation for the roles they perform assisting Veterans with accessing care, coupled with an intentional approach by healthcare systems to address MSAs' concerns about recognition/compensation. Future research should explore the potential for enhanced MSA customer service training to improve the Veteran patient experience.

Telephone Access Management in Primary Care: Cross-Case Analysis of High-Performing Primary Care Access Sites.

BACKGROUND: Primary care telephone access has been associated with patient satisfaction and emergency department utilization even after accounting for objective appointment wait times. However, relatively little is known about how to best structure and manage telephone access in primary care. OBJECTIVE: Assess how primary care telephone access is structured and managed and explore how variation in telephone management may affect primary care teams and patients. DESIGN: We used 2016 administrative and patient survey data to select six Veterans Administration medical centers (VAMCs) with above-average primary care access (time to third next available appointment) but variable patient-reported access, geographic region, and urbanicity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted August -October 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three key stakeholders knowledgeable about primary care, telephone management, and operational priorities nationally and/or within each VAMC. KEY RESULTS: Telephone access was organized and managed differently across sites. Regional call centers were perceived as more efficient but less flexible in tailoring processes to meet local needs. Patient preferences for speaking with their own care teams were cited as a reason to manage telephone access locally rather than regionally, particularly in rural sites. Sites with high patient-rated access described call center functions as well-integrated with primary care team workflow, while those with low patient-rated access perceived telephone management practices as negatively affecting primary care team workload. Call center understaffing was a major barrier to optimal telephone access in all six sites, though rural sites reported greater challenges with provider recruitment and retention. CONCLUSIONS: In VA, efforts to improve telephone access have focused on centralizing call center operations but current call center performance metrics do not account for the extent to which call center functions are integrated with primary care workflows or may impact patient experience. Efforts to improve primary care access should carefully consider impact of telephone management practices on providers and patients.

Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Workplace Civility and Burnout Among VA Primary Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: Civility, or politeness, is an important part of the healthcare workplace, and its absence can lead to healthcare provider and staff burnout. Lack of civility is well-documented among mostly female nurses, but is not well-described among the gender-mixed primary care provider (PCP) workforce. Understanding civility and its relationship to burnout among male and female PCPs could help lead to tailored interventions to improve civility and reduce burnout in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To analyze gender differences in civility, burnout, and the relationship between civility and burnout among male and female PCPs. DESIGN: Multi-level logistic regression analysis of a cross-sectional national survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3216 PCP respondents (1946 women and 1270 men) in 135 medical centers from a 2019 national Veterans Health Administration (VA) survey. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes: burnout; predictors: workplace civility and gender; controls: race, ethnicity, VA tenure, and supervisory status. KEY RESULTS: Workplace civility was rated higher (p<0.001) among male (mean = 4.07, standard deviation [SD] = 0.36, range 1-5) compared to female (mean = 3.88, SD = 0.33) PCPs. Almost half of the sample reported burnout (47.6%), but this difference was not significant (p = 0.73) between the genders. Higher workplace civility was significantly related to lower burnout among female PCPs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31 to 0.69), but not among male PCPs (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.42 to 1.22). Interactions between civility and other demographic variables (race, ethnicity, VA tenure, or supervisory status) were not significantly related to burnout. CONCLUSION: Female PCPs report lower workplace civility than male PCPs. An inverse relationship between civility and burnout is present for women but not men. More research is needed on this phenomenon. Interventions tailored to gender- and primary care-specific needs should be employed to increase civility and reduce burnout among PCPs.

Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: a Scoping Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) initiatives often reflect approaches based on anecdotal evidence, but it is unclear how initiatives can best incorporate scientific literature and methods into the QI process. Review of studies of QI initiatives that aim to systematically incorporate evidence review (termed evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI)) may provide a basis for further methodological development. METHODS: In this scoping review (registration: https://osf.io/hr5bj ) of EBQI, we searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. The review addressed three central questions: How is EBQI defined? How is evidence used to inform evidence-informed QI initiatives? What is the effectiveness of EBQI? RESULTS: We identified 211 publications meeting inclusion criteria. In total, 170 publications explicitly used the term "EBQI." Published definitions emphasized relying on evidence throughout the QI process. We reviewed a subset of 67 evaluations of QI initiatives in primary care, including both studies that used the term "EBQI" with those that described an evidence-based initiative without using EBQI terminology. The most frequently reported EBQI components included use of evidence to identify previously tested effective QI interventions; engaging stakeholders; iterative intervention development; partnering with frontline clinicians; and data-driven evaluation of the QI intervention. Effectiveness estimates were positive but varied in size in ten studies that provided data on patient health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: EBQI is a promising strategy for integrating relevant prior scientific findings and methods systematically in the QI process, from the initial developmental phase of the IQ initiative through to its evaluation. Future QI researchers and practitioners can use these findings as the basis for further development of QI initiatives.

The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching Project: Cluster-Randomized Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Patient Experience of Care Coordination.

BACKGROUND: Given persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination. OBJECTIVE: The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics. DESIGN: Multi-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs. INTERVENTIONS: We used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: We quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects. KEY RESULTS: N = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone. CONCLUSION: Although coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.

What Do Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) Teams Need to Improve Care for Primary Care Patients with Complex Needs?

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care (IPC) programs for patients with complex needs do not generate cost savings in most settings. Strengthening existing patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) to address the needs of these patients in primary care is a potential high-value alternative. OBJECTIVES: Explore PCMH team functioning and characteristics that may impact their ability to perform IPC tasks; identify the IPC components that could be incorporated into PCMH teams' workflow; and identify additional resources, trainings, and staff needed to better manage patients with complex needs in primary care. METHODS: We interviewed 44 primary care leaders, PCMH team members (providers, nurses, social workers), and IPC program leaders at 5 VA IPC sites and analyzed a priori themes using a matrix analysis approach. RESULTS: Higher-functioning PCMH teams were described as already performing most IPC tasks, including panel management and care coordination. All sites reported that PCMH teams had the knowledge and skills to perform IPC tasks, but not with the same intensity as specialized IPC teams. Home visits/assessments and co-attending appointments were perceived as not feasible to perform. Key stakeholders identified 6 categories of supports and capabilities that PCMH teams would need to better manage complex patients, with care coordination/management and fully staffed teams as the most frequently mentioned. Many thought that PCMH teams could make better use of existing VA and non-VA resources, but might need training in identifying and using those resources. CONCLUSIONS: PCMH teams can potentially offer certain clinic-based services associated with IPC programs, but tasks that are time intensive or require physical absence from clinic might require collaboration with community service providers and better use of internal and external healthcare system resources. Future studies should explore the feasibility of PCMH adoption of IPC tasks and the impact on patient outcomes.

Outcomes that Matter: High-Needs Patients' and Primary Care Leaders' Perspectives on an Intensive Primary Care Pilot.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value. OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients. DESIGN: A total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: High-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites. APPROACH: We used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects. KEY RESULTS: Patients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort's numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC's effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy).

Association between care coordination tasks with non-VA community care and VA PCP burnout: an analysis of a national, cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The scope of care coordination in VA primary care increased with the launch of the Veterans Choice Act, which aimed to increase access through greater use of non-VA Community Care. These changes may have overburdened already busy providers with additional administrative tasks, contributing to provider burnout. Our objective was to understand the role of challenges with care coordination in burnout. We analyzed relationships between care coordination challenges with Community Care reported by VA primary care providers (PCPs) and VA PCP burnout. METHODS: Our cross-sectional survey contained five questions about challenges with care coordination. We assessed whether care coordination challenges were associated with two measures of provider burnout, adjusted for provider and facility characteristics. Models were also adjusted for survey nonresponse and clustered by facility. Trainee and executive respondents were excluded. 1,543 PCPs in 129 VA facilities nationwide responded to our survey (13 % response rate). RESULTS: 51 % of our sample reported some level of burnout overall, and 46 % reported feeling burned out at least once a week. PCPs were more likely to be burned out overall if they reported more than average challenges with care coordination (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.58 to 2.63). These challenges include managing patients with outside prescriptions or obtaining outside tests or records. CONCLUSIONS: VA primary care providers who reported greater than average care coordination challenges were more likely to be burned out. Interventions to improve care coordination could help improve VA provider experience.

Engaging Community Networks to Improve Depression Services: A Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Community Engagement and Planning Intervention.

This paper explores the effects of a group-randomized controlled trial, Community Partners in Care (CPIC), on the development of interagency networks for collaborative depression care improvement between a community engagement and planning (CEP) intervention and a resources for services (RS) intervention that provided the same content solely via technical assistance to individual programs. Both interventions consisted of a diverse set of service agencies, including health, mental health, substance abuse treatment, social services, and community-trusted organizations such as churches and parks and recreation centers. Participants in the community councils for the CEP intervention reflected a range of agency leaders, staff, and other stakeholders. Network analysis of partnerships among agencies in the CEP versus RS condition, and qualitative analysis of perspectives on interagency network changes from multiple sources, suggested that agencies in the CEP intervention exhibited greater growth in partnership capacity among themselves than did RS agencies. CEP participants also viewed the coalition development intervention both as promoting collaboration in depression services and as a meaningful community capacity building activity. These descriptive results help to identify plausible mechanisms of action for the CPIC interventions and can be used to guide development of future community engagement interventions and evaluations in under-resourced communities.

Use of the Veterans' Choice Program and Attrition From Veterans Health Administration Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Concerns over timely access and waiting times for appointments in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) spurred the push towards greater privatization. In 2014, VHA increased the provision of care from community providers through the Veterans' Choice Program (Choice). OBJECTIVES: We examined the characteristics of patients and practices more likely to use Choice care and whether using Choice care affected patients' attrition from VHA primary care. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a longitudinal study of VHA primary care users in the fiscal year 2015 and their attrition 2 years later. In the multivariate analysis, we examined whether attrition from VHA primary care was related to prior use of Choice care. SUBJECTS: A total of 1.4 million nonelderly patients diagnosed with chronic conditions. MEASURES: Choice outpatient care utilization was measured in the baseline year. Attrition was measured as not receiving any VHA primary care in 2 subsequent years. RESULTS: In our cohort, 93,710 (7%) patients used some Choice outpatient care, and these patients were more likely to be female, White or Hispanic, to have more primary care utilization at baseline, and to have long driving distances to VHA care. Practices which sent more patients out for Choice care had lower mean scores for patient-centered medical home implementation and longer mean waiting times for appointments. In the adjusted analysis, the probability of attrition was significantly lower (-0.009) among patients who used Choice outpatient care (0.036) versus patients who did not (0.044) (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of community outpatient providers in the Choice program was associated with less attrition from VHA primary care.

Eight Priorities for Improving Primary Care Access Management in Healthcare Organizations: Results of a Modified Delphi Stakeholder Panel.

OBJECTIVE: To identify priorities for improving healthcare organization management of patient access to primary care based on prior evidence and a stakeholder panel. BACKGROUND: Studies on healthcare access show its importance for ensuring population health. Few studies show how healthcare organizations can improve access. METHODS: We conducted a modified Delphi stakeholder panel anchored by a systematic review. Panelists (N = 20) represented diverse stakeholder groups including patients, providers, policy makers, purchasers, and payers of healthcare services, predominantly from the Veterans Health Administration. A pre-panel survey addressed over 80 aspects of healthcare organization management of access, including defining access management. Panelists discussed survey-based ratings during a 2-day in-person meeting and re-voted afterward. A second panel process focused on each final priority and developed recommendations and suggestions for implementation. RESULTS: The panel achieved consensus on definitions of optimal access and access management on eight urgent and important priorities for guiding access management improvement, and on 1-3 recommendations per priority. Each recommendation is supported by referenced, panel-approved suggestions for implementation. Priorities address two organizational structure targets (interdisciplinary primary care site leadership; clearly identified group practice management structure); four process improvements (patient telephone access management; contingency staffing; nurse management of demand through care coordination; proactive demand management by optimizing provider visit schedules), and two outcomes (quality of patients' experiences of access; provider and staff morale). Recommendations and suggestions for implementation, including literature references, are summarized in a panelist-approved, ready-to-use tool. CONCLUSIONS: A stakeholder panel informed by a pre-panel systematic review identified eight action-oriented priorities for improving access and recommendations for implementing each priority. The resulting tool is suitable for guiding the VA and other integrated healthcare delivery organizations in assessing and initiating improvements in access management, and for supporting continued research.

Does Mental Health Care Integration Affect Primary Care Clinician Burnout? Results from a Longitudinal Veterans Affairs Survey.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among primary care clinicians (PCPs) is associated with negative health and productivity consequences. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) embedded mental health specialists and care managers in primary care to manage common psychiatric diseases. While challenging to implement, mental health integration is a team-based care model thought to improve clinician well-being. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationships between PCP-reported burnout (and secondarily, job satisfaction) and mental health integration at provider and clinic levels DESIGN: Analysis of 286 cross-sectional surveys in 2012 (n = 171) and 2013 (n = 115) PARTICIPANTS: 210 PCPs in one VA region MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were PCP-reported burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory emotional exhaustion subscale), and secondarily, job satisfaction. Two independent variables represented mental health integration: (1) PCP-specialty communication rating and (2) proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists. Using multilevel regression models, we examined PCP-reported burnout (and job satisfaction) and mental health integration, adjusting for PCP characteristics (e.g., gender), PCP ratings of team functioning (communication, knowledge/skills, satisfaction), and organizational factors. KEY RESULTS: On average, PCPs reported high burnout (29, range = 9-54) across all VA healthcare systems. In total, 46% of PCPs reported "very easy" communication with mental health; 9% of primary clinic patients had seen integrated specialists. Burnout was not significantly associated with mental health communication ratings (ß coefficient = - 0.96, standard error [SE] = 1.29, p = 0.46), nor with proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists (ß = 0.02, SE = 0.11, p = 0.88). No associations were observed with job satisfaction either. Among study participants, PCPs with poor team functioning, as exhibited by low team communication ratings, reported high burnout (ß = - 1.28, SE = 0.22, p < 0.001) and low job satisfaction (ß = 0.12, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As currently implemented, primary care and mental health integration did not appear to impact PCP-reported burnout, nor job satisfaction. More research is needed to explore care model variation among clinics in order to optimize implementation to enhance PCP well-being.

Association Between Difficulty with VA Patient-Centered Medical Home Model Components and Provider Emotional Exhaustion and Intent to Remain in Practice.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model is intended to improve primary care, but evidence of its effects on provider well-being is mixed. Investigating the relationships between specific PCMH components and provider burnout and potential attrition may help improve the efficacy of the care model. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed provider attitudes toward specific components of PCMH in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) and their relation to emotional exhaustion (EE)-a central component of burnout-and intent to remain in VA primary care. DESIGN: Logistic regression analysis of a cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS: 116 providers (physicians; nurse practitioners; physician assistants) in 21 practices between September 2015 and January 2016 in one VA region. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes: burnout as measured with the emotional exhaustion (EE) subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory and intent to remain in VA primary care for the next 2 years; predictors: difficulties with components of PCMH, demographic characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Forty percent of providers reported high EE (≥ 27 points) and 63% reported an intent to remain in VA primary care for the next 2 years. Providers reporting high difficultly with PCMH elements were more likely to report high EE, for example, coordinating with specialists (odds ratio [OR] 8.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.58-19.33), responding to EHR alerts (OR 6.88; 95% CI 1.93-24.43), and managing unscheduled visits (OR 7.53, 95% CI 2.01-28.23). Providers who reported high EE were also 87% less likely to intend to remain in VA primary care. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce EE and turnover in PCMH, primary care providers may need additional support and training to address challenges with specific aspects of the model.

Do Collaborative Care Managers and Technology Enhance Primary Care Satisfaction with Care from Embedded Mental Health Providers?

BACKGROUND: To improve mental health care access, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) in clinics nationally. Primary care clinical leader satisfaction can inform model implementation and may be facilitated by collaborative care managers and technology supporting cross-specialty collaboration. OBJECTIVE: (1) To determine primary care clinical leaders' overall satisfaction with care from embedded mental health providers for a range of conditions and (2) to examine the association between overall satisfaction and two program features (care managers, technology). DESIGN: Cross-sectional organizational survey in one VA region (Southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico), 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-nine physicians or other designated clinical leaders in each VA primary care clinic (94% response rate). MAIN MEASURES: We assessed primary care clinical leader satisfaction with embedded mental health care on four groups of conditions: target, non-target mental health, behavioral health, suicide risk management. They additionally responded about the availability of mental health care managers and the sufficiency of information technology (telemental health, e-consult, instant messaging). We examined relationships between satisfaction and the two program features using χ2 tests and multivariable regressions. KEY RESULTS: Most primary care clinical leaders were "very satisfied" with care for targeted anxiety (71%) and depression (69%), but not for other common conditions (37% alcohol misuse, 19% pain). Care manager availability was significantly associated with "very satisfied" responses for depression (p = .02) and anxiety care by embedded mental health providers (p = .02). Highly rated sufficiency of communication technology (only 19%) was associated with "very satisfied" responses to suicide risk management (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Care from embedded mental health providers for depression and anxiety was highly satisfactory, which may guide improvement among less satisfactory conditions (alcohol misuse, pain). Observed associations between overall satisfaction and collaborative care features may inform clinics on how to optimize staffing and technology based on priority conditions.

Elements of the healthy work environment associated with lower primary care nurse burnout.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relationship between primary care nurses' work environment and burnout, particularly in settings where patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) have been implemented. PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between PCMH nurses' work environment and burnout. METHODS: Multivariable analyses were performed using two waves of survey data from PCMH registered nurses (RNs; n = 170) and PCMH licensed vocational nurses (LVNs; n = 181) in 23 primary care clinics. FINDINGS: True collaboration was inversely associated with PCMH RN burnout (b = -2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.29, -0.08, p < .01). Meaningful recognition was inversely associated with PCMH LVN burnout (b = -5.1, 95% CI = -8.36, -1.82, p < .01). In models with all nurses, RN (vs. LVN) position was associated with higher levels of burnout (b = 6.2, 95% CI = 2.47, 9.84, p < .01). DISCUSSION: This study highlights the important role of the work environment in reducing PCMH nurse burnout. Strategies to foster team collaboration and meaningful recognition should be investigated to reduce PCMH nurse burnout.