Understanding How Contingency Staffing Programs Can Support Mental Health Services in the Veterans Health Administration.

Introduction: Beginning in 2019, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prioritized improving access to care nationally to deliver virtual care and implemented 18 regionally based Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs) to meet this priority. This observational study describes the quantity and types of care delivered by CRH Mental Health teams, and the professions of those hired to deliver it. Methods: A retrospective cohort study, based on national VA CRH mental health care utilization data and CRH staffing data for CRH's first 3 years, was conducted. Results: CRH Mental Health teams primarily used Telemental Health (TMH) to provide care (98.1% of all CRH MH encounters). The most common disorders treated included depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety disorders. The amount of care delivered overtime steadily increased as did the racial and ethnic diversity of Veterans served. Psychologists accounted for the largest share of CRH staffing, followed by psychiatrists. Conclusions: CRH TMH delivered from a regional hub appears to be a feasible and acceptable visit modality, based on the continuously increasing CRH TMH visit rates. Our results showed that CRH TMH was predominantly used to address common mental health diagnoses, rather than serious mental illnesses. Traditionally marginalized patient populations increased over the 3-year window, suggesting that CRH TMH resources were accessible to many of these patients. Future research should assess barriers and facilitators for accessing CRH TMH, especially for difficult-to-service patient populations, and should consider whether similar results to ours occur when regional TMH is delivered to non-VA patient populations.

Impact of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement on Tailoring VA's Patient-Centered Medical Home Model to Women Veterans' Needs.

BACKGROUND: Women Veterans' numerical minority, high rates of military sexual trauma, and gender-specific healthcare needs have complicated implementation of comprehensive primary care (PC) under VA's patient-centered medical home model, Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT). OBJECTIVE: We deployed an evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) approach to tailor PACT to meet women Veterans' needs and studied its effects on women's health (WH) care readiness, team-based care, and burnout. DESIGN: We evaluated EBQI effectiveness in a cluster randomized trial with unbalanced random allocation of 12 VAMCs (8 EBQI vs. 4 control). Clinicians/staff completed web-based surveys at baseline (2014) and 24 months (2016). We adjusted for individual-level covariates (e.g., years at VA) and weighted for non-response in difference-in-difference analyses for readiness and team-based care overall and by teamlet type (mixed-gender PC-PACTs vs. women-only WH-PACTs), as well as post-only burnout comparisons. PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed all clinicians/staff in general PC and WH clinics. INTERVENTION: EBQI involved structured engagement of multilevel, multidisciplinary stakeholders at network, VAMC, and clinic levels toward network-specific QI roadmaps. The research team provided QI training, formative feedback, and external practice facilitation, and support for cross-site collaboration calls to VAMC-level QI teams, which developed roadmap-linked projects adapted to local contexts. MAIN MEASURES: WH care readiness (confidence providing WH care, self-efficacy implementing PACT for women, barriers to providing care for women, gender sensitivity); team-based care (change-readiness, communication, decision-making, PACT-related QI, functioning); burnout. KEY RESULTS: Overall, EBQI had mixed effects which varied substantively by type of PACT. In PC-PACTs, EBQI increased self-efficacy implementing PACT for women and gender sensitivity, even as it lowered confidence. In contrast, in WH-PACTs, EBQI improved change-readiness, team-based communication, and functioning, and was associated with lower burnout. CONCLUSIONS: EBQI effectiveness varied, with WH-PACTs experiencing broader benefits and PC-PACTs improving basic WH care readiness. Lower confidence delivering WH care by PC-PACT members warrants further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The data in this paper represent results from a cluster randomized controlled trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02039856).

Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM. DESIGN: Secondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. SETTING: Five integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions. PARTICIPANTS: Staff and high-risk PC patients in the VA. INTERVENTION: A multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: (a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain. RESULTS: Most (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.