RESUMEN
This Quality Improvement project evaluated the implementation of a virtual Tai Chi program for older Veterans (OVs) at risk of loneliness and/or physical deconditioning. A 12-week Tai Chi course was conducted virtually at three Veterans Affairs sites using VA Video Connect (VVC). Changes in physical function based on the 30-Second Chair Stand (30CST) and loneliness based on the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGS) were measured, as were the OVs' satisfaction and adherence. Of 109 OVs who enrolled, 74 completed the program with a mean attendance rate of 84%. Completers demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the 30CST, and those who were moderately or severely lonely at baseline saw a statistically significant improvement in the DJGS. Course evaluations were generally very positive. Results suggest that a virtual Tai Chi program is an effective and very satisfying intervention for OVs at risk of loneliness or physical deconditioning.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this project was to measure satisfaction with virtual comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGA) among older Veterans (OVs). METHODS: The CGA involved five different healthcare providers and four one-hour VA Video Connect (VVC) calls. Using specific enrollment criteria, OVs were recruited in four cohorts separated by time. After completing the CGA, participants were asked to complete a 10-statement telephone questionnaire. Before analyses, responses to each statement were dichotomized as Agree (Agree/Strongly agree) or Do not Agree (Neutral/Disagree/Strongly Disagree). Descriptive statistics and Binomial generalized linear models (GLMs) were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: All 269 enrolled OVs completed all components of the CGA. This included 79, 57, 61, and 72 Veterans in cohorts 1 to 4, respectively. Their average age was 76.0 ± 5.9 years, and they were predominately white (82%), male (94%), and residents of rural settings (64%). Of the 236 (88%) OVs who completed the telephone survey, 57% indicated they were comfortable using VVC and 57% expressed willingness to use VVC again; 44% felt that VVC was easier than going to in-person visits. The OVs in Cohort 1 were more likely to agree with these statements than those in the remaining cohorts, especially Cohorts 2 and 4. Differences in demographics partially explained some of these findings. The majority (89% or higher) of survey participants agreed with the remaining seven survey statements indicating they were satisfied with the CGA program. CONCLUSION: OVs were very satisfied with their participation in a program of CGA, although not necessarily the mode of delivery. The percentage of participants who indicated discomfort using VVC for the CGA visits appeared to increase with time. Further work is needed to determine which OVs would be the best candidates to use VVC to complete all or part of a CGA.
RESUMEN
Objective: Determine the extent to which use of Clinical Video Telehealth to Home (VT2H) for primary care licensed independent practitioner visits (PCLIPVs) varied over time and across the Veterans Health Administration (VA) during the first 18 months of the COVID pandemic, and if there was an association between VT2H usage and VA station characteristics. Materials and Methods: All outpatient encounters (n = 12â143â456) for Veterans (n = 4â373â638) that had VA PCLIPVs during the period of observation were categorized as conducted by VT2H, in-person, or telephone. The change over time in the percentage of total PCLIPVs conducted by VT2H was plotted and associations between VA station characteristics and VT2H usage were analyzed using simple statistics and negative binomial regression. Results: Between March 2020 and mid-August 2020, VT2H visits increased from <2% to 13% of all VA PCLIPVs. However, VT2H usage varied substantively by VA station and declined system-wide to <9% of PCLIPVs by July 2021. VA stations that serve a greater proportion of rural Veterans were found less likely to use VT2H. Discussion: The VA was successful in increasing the use of VT2H for PCLIPVs during the first phase of the COVID pandemic. However, VT2H usage varied by VA station and over time. Beyond rurality, it is unknown what station characteristics may be responsible for the variance in VT2H use. Conclusion: Future investigation is warranted to identify the unique practices employed by VA stations that were most successful in using VT2H for PCLIPVs and whether they can be effectively disseminated to other stations.