Prevalence and Correlates of VA-Purchased Community Care Use Among Post-9/11-Era Veterans With Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Post-9/11-era veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI) have greater health-related complexity than veterans overall, and may require coordinated care from TBI specialists such as those within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. With passage of the Choice and MISSION Acts, more veterans are using VA-purchased care delivered by community providers who may lack TBI training. We explored prevalence and correlates of VA-purchased care use among post-9/11 veterans with TBI. SETTING: Nationwide VA-purchased care from 2016 through 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Post-9/11-era veterans with clinician-confirmed TBI based on VA's Comprehensive TBI Evaluation (N = 65 144). DESIGN: This was a retrospective, observational study. MAIN MEASURES: Proportions of veterans who used VA-purchased care and both VA-purchased and VA-delivered outpatient care, overall and by study year. We employed multivariable logistic regression to assess associations between veterans' sociodemographic, military history, and clinical characteristics and their likelihood of using VA-purchased care from 2016 through 2019. RESULTS: Overall, 51% of veterans with TBI used VA-purchased care during the study period. Nearly all who used VA-purchased care (99%) also used VA-delivered outpatient care. Veterans' sociodemographic, military, and clinical characteristics were associated with their likelihood of using VA-purchased care. Notably, in adjusted analyses, veterans with moderate/severe TBI (vs mild), those with higher health risk scores, and those diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, or pain-related conditions had increased odds of using VA-purchased care. Additionally, those flagged as high risk for suicide also had higher odds of VA-purchased care use. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans with TBI with greater health-related complexity were more likely to use VA-purchased care than their less complex counterparts. The risks of potential care fragmentation across providers versus the benefits of increased access to care are unknown. Research is needed to examine health and functional outcomes among these veterans.

Strategies for engaging patients in co-design of an intervention.

OBJECTIVE: We provide practical guidance about using co-design methods to collaborate with patients to create patient-facing interventions, which others can use when undertaking similar projects. METHODS: This is a narrative review synthesizing co-design principles and published literature with our experience working alongside five Veteran patients of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in New England to co-design a portfolio of patient-facing materials to improve patient-centered care coordination. Our process took 12 weeks (April - June 2022) and was conducted entirely via video conference. RESULTS: Co-design is a participatory research method. Its principles include sharing power over the research process and products, agency for all participants, embracing a plurality of forms of knowledge, and mutual and reciprocal benefit. We describe three stages of the co-design process (preparatory work; design and development; feedback and closure), strategies and techniques we used at each stage, challenges we faced, and considerations for addressing them. CONCLUSION: Co-designing patient-facing interventions blends different forms of knowledge to produce practical, contextually specific interventions with ownership by the people who will use them. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Co-design is a feasible methodology for most health services research teams whose goal is to intensify patient engagement in research.

Clinical pharmacist practitioners on primary care teams play an important role in caring for complex patients with diabetes.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) are being utilized to care for patients with complex medication regimens and multiple chronic illnesses, we compared the clinical complexity of diabetes patients referred to CPPs in team primary care and those in care by other team providers (OTPs). METHODS: In this cross-sectional comparison of patients with diabetes in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system in the 2017-2019 period, patient complexity was based on clinical factors likely to indicate need for more time and resources in medication and disease state management. These factors include insulin prescriptions; use of 3 or more other diabetes medication classes; use of 6 or more other medication classes; 5 or more vascular complications; metabolic complications; 8 or more other complex chronic conditions; chronic kidney disease stage 3b or higher; glycated hemoglobin level of ≥10%; and medication regime nonadherence. RESULTS: Patients with diabetes referred to one of 110 CPPs for care (n = 12,728) scored substantially higher (P < 0.001) than patients with diabetes in care with one of 544 OTPs (n = 81,183) on every complexity measure, even after adjustment for age, sex, race, and marital status. Based on composite summary scores, the likelihood of complexity was 3.42 (interquartile range, 3.25-3.60) times higher for those in ongoing CPP care (ie, those with 2 or more visits) versus OTP care. Patients in CPP care also were, on average, younger, more obese, and had more prior outpatient visits and hospital stays. CONCLUSION: The greater complexity of patients with diabetes seen by CPPs in primary care suggests that CPPs are providing valuable services in comprehensive medication and disease management of complex patients.

Clinical pharmacy practitioners' semi-visible labor: building referral relationships in interprofessional collaborative care.

Clinical pharmacy practitioners (CPP) in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) prescribe medications and help manage chronic conditions such as diabetes, and they are increasingly working as part of interprofessional clinical teams. The challenges of integrating a new role in a clinical team are documented, but we know less about strategies new healthcare providers use to overcome these challenges. We studied how clinical pharmacy practitioners integrated into clinical teams. We conducted telephone interviews with clinical pharmacy practitioners (n = 53) and members of their clinical teams (n = 74), which were recorded, transcribed, and coded for concepts and themes. We identified four major themes. We found CPP perceived VHA as a "safe haven" for interprofessional care but found it necessary to build other prescribers' trust and confidence in their clinical skills to establish the referral relationships they needed for full integration. To facilitate their integration, CPP engaged in relational, untracked labor, which we characterize as semi-visible labor. While both CPP and clinical team members perceived CPPs' semi-visible labor as vital for implementing and maintaining strong interprofessional collaborations, such labor may be unsustainable as a long-term strategy for integrating CPP in clinical teams.

Perceptions of clinical pharmacy specialists' contributions in mental health clinical teams.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health (MH) clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS) are increasingly functioning as integral providers in MH care teams. MH providers may delegate many medication management tasks to the CPS. As there is a shortage of primary care and specialist MH providers, CPS are increasingly being utilized in MH care clinics. We assess provider and CPS perceptions of the contributions of CPS to MH clinical teams in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: We examined the roles and functions of CPS in MH clinics through surveys (n = 374) and semistructured interviews (n = 16) with MH CPS and other members of MH clinical teams (psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, social workers) to gain insight into how CPS were integrated in these settings. We assessed perceptions of CPS contributions to MH teams, interactions between CPS and other providers, and challenges of integrating CPS into MH clinical teams. RESULTS: Contributions of CPS in MH were received positively by clinical team members. Clinical pharmacy specialists providing comprehensive medication management were especially valuable in the management of clozapine. The knowledge and training of CPS reassured providers who frequently referred to them with questions about medication and medication therapy management. MH CPS were also perceived to be received well by patients. DISCUSSION: The integration of MH CPS into MH teams was well received by team members and patients alike. The MH CPS have become important members of the MH team and are widely viewed as being able to improve access, quality, and workflow.

"We have no magic bullet": Diagnostic ideals in veterans' mild traumatic brain injury evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: To understand military veterans' and healthcare providers' experiences identifying veterans' personal histories of combat-related mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) months or years after the injury. METHODS: Patients and clinical staff of a Veterans Health Administration (VA) Polytrauma/TBI clinic participated in a seven-month ethnographic study, which combined direct observation and interviews with veterans (n = 12) and VA clinicians (n = 11). Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Veterans and staff have different understandings of the value of neuroimaging in care for patients with post-acute mTBI, and different understandings of the role of diagnostic certainty in clinical care. Veterans sought to understand the relationship between their past head injuries and their current symptoms. Clinicians educated veterans that their symptoms could be caused by multiple factors and embraced ambiguity as part of treating this patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-provider communication may be enhanced by conversations about common norms of diagnosis and why evaluating mTBI histories departs from these norms. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should anticipate that patients may expect a diagnostic process that entails neuroimaging and resolves their uncertainty. In the case of post-acute mTBI, patients would likely benefit from education about the diagnostic process, itself.

Introducing clinical pharmacy specialists into interprofessional primary care teams: Assessing pharmacists' team integration and access to care for rural patients.

ABSTRACT: Clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS) were deployed nationally to improve care access and relieve provider burden in primary care.The aim of this study was to assess CPS integration in primary care and the Clinical Pharmacy Specialist Rural Veteran Access (CRVA) initiative's effectiveness in improving access.Concurrent embedded mixed-methods evaluation of participating CRVA CPS and their clinical team members (primary care providers, others).Health care providers on primary care teams in Veterans Health Administration (VHA).Perceived CPS integration in comprehensive medication management assessed using the MUPM and semi-structured interviews, and access measured with patient encounter data.There were 496,323 medical encounters with CPS in primary care over a 3-year period. One hundred twenty-four CPS and 1177 other clinical team members responded to a self-administered web-based questionnaire, with semi-structured interviews completed by 22 CPS and clinicians. Survey results indicated that all clinical provider groups rank CPS as making major contributions to CMM. CPS ranked themselves as contributing more to CMM than did their physician team members. CPS reported higher job satisfaction, less burn out, and better role fit; but CPS gave lower scores for communication and decision making as clinic organizational attributes. Themes in provider interviews focused on value of CPS in teams, relieving provider burden, facilitators to integration, and team communication issues.This evaluation indicates good integration of CPS on primary care teams as perceived by other team members despite some communication and role clarification challenges. CPS may play an important role in improving access to primary care.

Clinical Pharmacist Integration Into Veterans' Primary Care: Team Members Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: With the restructuring of primary care into patient-centered medical homes (PCMH), researchers have described role transformations that accompany the formation of core primary care teamlets (eg, primary care provider, registered nurse care manager, licensed practical nurse, medical support assistant). However, few studies offer insight into how primary care teamlets, once established, integrate additional extended team members, and the factors that influence the quality of their integration. METHODS: We examine the process of integrating Clinical Pharmacy Specialists (CPS) into primary care teams in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). We conducted semi-structured interviews with CPS (n = 6) and clinical team members (n = 16) and performed a thematic analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: We characterize 2 ways CPS are integrated into primary care teamlets: in consultative roles and collaborative roles. CPS may be limited to consultative roles by team members' misconceptions about their competencies (ie, if CPS are perceived to handle only medication-related issues like refills) and by primary care providers' opinions about distributing responsibilities for patient care. Over time, teams may correct misconceptions and integrate the CPS in a more collaborative role (ie, CPS helps manage disease states with comprehensive medication management). CONCLUSIONS: CPS integrated into collaborative roles may have more opportunities to optimize their contributions to primary care, underscoring the importance of clarifying roles as part of adequately integrating advanced practitioners in interprofessional teams.

Mentally Fit: Negotiating the Boundaries of Cognitive Disability.

Why do some people's minds seem conspicuous, disabled, and ill-fitting in some contexts and not others? This special issue presents articles about people in Jordan, Uganda, the United Kingdom and the United States who live with Down syndrome, autism, intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, or histories of brain injuries. We focus on the disjunctive encounters between these individuals' minds and the varied relational processes in their surrounding social world in order to understand why different mental characteristics become points of concern and comparison at some points and not others - and thus to raise questions about how "fitting in" works altogether.

Leveraging Ambiguity in the Clinic: Mild TBI and Veterans' Forgetting.

US military veterans who have histories of mild traumatic brain injury (mild TBI) are evaluated and treated in specialized clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). In this ethnography of one such clinic, I explore the problem of veterans' forgetting. I focus on doctors' strategy of actively drawing attention to the ambiguous causes of forgetting to reposition past head injuries as among many possible explanations, including posttraumatic stress, pain, and everyday distractions. This leveraging of ambiguity as therapy highlights both the utility of and tensions inherent in the expansive clinical gaze of therapeutic medicine.