Measuring the unmet needs of American military Veterans and their caregivers: Survey protocol of the HERO CARE survey.

BACKGROUND: Empowering Veterans to age in place is a Department of Veterans Affairs priority. Family or unpaid caregivers play an important role in supporting Veterans to achieve this goal. Effectively meeting the needs of Veterans and caregivers requires identifying unmet needs and relevant gaps in resources to address those needs. METHODS: Using a modified Socio-Ecological Model, we developed a prospective longitudinal panel design survey. We randomly selected 20,000 community-dwelling Veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), across five VHA sites. We oversampled Veterans with a higher predicted 2-year long-term institutional care (LTIC) risk. Veterans were mailed a packet containing a Veteran survey and a caregiver survey, to be answered by their caregiver if they had one. The Veteran survey assessed the following health-related domains: physical, mental, social determinants of health, and caregiver assistance. Caregivers completed questions regarding their demographic factors, caregiving activities, impact of caregiving, use of VA and non-VA services, and caregiver support resources. Follow-up surveys will be repeated twice at 12-month intervals for the same respondents. This article describes the HERO CARE survey protocol, content, and response rates. RESULTS: We received responses from 8,056 Veterans and 3,579 caregivers between July 2021 and January 2022, with 95.6% being received via mail. Veteran respondents were mostly males (96.5%), over 65 years of age (94.9%), married (55.0%), Non-Hispanic White (75.2%), and residing in urban areas (80.7%). CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal survey is unique in its comprehensive assessment of domains relevant to older Veterans stratified by LTIC risk and their caregivers, focusing on social determinants, caregiver support, and the use of caregiver support resources. Survey data will be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and VA data. The results of this study will inform better planning of non-institutional care services and policy for Veterans and their caregivers.

Growth trends of the adult hospitalist workforce between 2012 and 2019.

BACKGROUND: Accurately identifying the number of practicing hospitalists across the United States continues to be a challenge. Characterizing the workforce is important in the context of healthcare reforms and public reporting. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the number of adult hospitalists practicing in the United States over an 8-year period, to examine patterns in growth, and begin to explore billing patterns. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study using national Medicare Part B claims datasets. We applied a commonly used 90% threshold of billing hospital visit-associated Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes to identify adult hospitalists in publicly available Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment data for 2012-2019. We then analyzed billing patterns for those identified hospitalists. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Identify trends in the number of identified adult hospitalists, including those self-identified. Compare hospitalists' billing to that of non-hospitalist Internal Medicine and Family Medicine physicians. RESULTS: We saw more than a 50% growth rate of practicing adult hospitalists between 2012 and 2019. In 2019, we identified 44,037 adult hospitalists. CONCLUSIONS: The number of adult hospitalists continued to grow at a consistent rate, such that hospitalists are in the top five largest physician specialties in the United States. In the absence of more formal identification and consistent use by hospitalists, a threshold continues to be a meaningful tool to characterize the workforce.

Adaptability on Shifting Ground: a Rapid Qualitative Assessment of Multi-institutional Inpatient Surge Planning and Workforce Deployment During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the initial wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, care delivery and workforce adaptations were rapidly implemented. In response to subsequent surges of patients, institutions have deployed, modified, and/or discontinued their workforce plans. OBJECTIVE: Using rapid qualitative methods, we sought to explore hospitalists' experiences with workforce deployment, types of clinicians deployed, and challenges encountered with subsequent iterations of surge planning during the COVID-19 pandemic across a collaborative of hospital medicine groups. APPROACH: Using rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were conducted in partnership with the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). We interviewed physicians, advanced practice providers (APP), and physician researchers about (1) ongoing adaptations to the workforce as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) current struggles with workforce planning, and (3) evolution of workforce planning. KEY RESULTS: We conducted five focus groups with 33 individuals from 24 institutions, representing 52% of HOMERuN sites. A variety of adaptations was described by participants, some common across institutions and others specific to the institution's location and context. Adaptations implemented shifted from the first waves of COVID patients to subsequent waves. Three global themes also emerged: (1) adaptability and comfort with dynamic change, (2) the importance of the unique hospitalist skillset for effective surge planning and redeployment, and (3) the lack of universal solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital workforce adaptations to the COVID pandemic continued to evolve. While few approaches were universally effective in managing surges of patients, and successful adaptations were highly context dependent, the ability to navigate a complex system, adaptability, and comfort in a chaotic, dynamic environment were themes considered most critical to successful surge management. However, resource constraints and sustained high workload levels raised issues of burnout.

Features of successful academic hospitalist programs: Insights from the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in academics and research) project.

BACKGROUND: As clinical demands increase, understanding the features that allow academic hospital medicine programs (AHPs) to thrive has become increasingly important. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a quantifiable definition of academic success for AHPs. METHODS: A working group of academic hospitalists was formed. The group identified grant funding, academic promotion, and scholarship as key domains reflective of success, and specific metrics and approaches to assess these domains were developed. Self-reported data on funding and promotion were available from a preexisting survey of AHP leaders, including total funding/group, funding/full-time equivalent (FTE), and number of faculty at each academic rank. Scholarship was defined in terms of research abstracts presented over a 2-year period. Lists of top performers in each of the 3 domains were constructed. Programs appearing on at least 1 list (the SCHOLAR cohort [SuCcessful HOspitaLists in Academics and Research]) were examined. We compared grant funding and proportion of promoted faculty within the SCHOLAR cohort to a sample of other AHPs identified in the preexisting survey. RESULTS: Seventeen SCHOLAR programs were identified, with a mean age of 13.2 years (range, 6-18 years) and mean size of 36 faculty (range, 18-95). The mean total grant funding/program was $4 million (range, $0-$15 million), with mean funding/FTE of $364,000 (range, $0-$1.4 million); both were significantly higher than the comparison sample. The majority of SCHOLAR faculty (82%) were junior, a lower percentage than the comparison sample. The mean number of research abstracts presented over 2 years was 10.8 (range, 9-23). DISCUSSION: Our approach effectively identified a subset of successful AHPs. Despite the relative maturity and large size of the programs in the SCHOLAR cohort, they were comprised of relatively few senior faculty members and varied widely in the quantity of funded research and scholarship. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:708-713. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Health care huddles: managing complexity to achieve high reliability.

BACKGROUND: Health care huddles are increasingly employed in a range of formats but theoretical mechanisms underlying huddles remain relatively uncharted. PURPOSE: A complexity science view implies that essential managerial strategies for high-performing health care organizations include meaningful conversations, enhanced relationships, and a learning culture. These three dimensions informed our approach to studying huddles. We explore new theories for how and why huddles have been useful in health care organizations. METHODS: We used a study design incorporating literature review, direct observation, and semistructured interviews. A complexity science framework guided data collection in three health care settings; we also incorporated theories on high-reliability organizations to analyze our observations and interpret huddle participants' perspectives. FINDINGS: We identify theoretical paths that could link huddles to improvement in patient safety outcomes. Huddles create time and space for conversations, enhance relationships, and strengthen a culture of safety. Huddles can be of particular value to health care organizations seeking or sustaining high reliability. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Achieving high reliability, the organizational capacity to deliver what is intended to be delivered every time is difficult in complex systems. Managers have potential to create conditions from which huddle outcomes that support high reliability are more likely to emerge. Huddles support efforts to improve patient safety when they afford opportunities for heedful interactions to take place among individuals caring for patients and embed mindfulness into the organization.

Providers' perspectives on treating psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: frustration and hope.

Recent diagnostic and treatment advances in psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) have the potential to improve care for patients, but little is known about the current state of PNES care delivery in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). We conducted semistructured interviews with 74 health-care clinicians and workers in the VA, eliciting provider perceptions of PNES care. Data were analyzed according to principles of Grounded Theory. The results revealed variation in care and two emergent domain themes of frustration and hope. Frustration was manifest in subthemes including Complexity, Patient Acceptance, Uncertainty About Treatment, Need for Evidence-based Treatment, and Failure of Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration between neurologists and mental health providers. Hope encompassed subthemes of Positive Attitudes, Developing Cross-Disciplinary Treatment, and Specific PNES Care. Increased resources for diagnosing, treating, and researching PNES have improved awareness of the disorder. More research is needed to understand patients' and caregivers' perceptions of PNES care.

Road map to a patient-centered research agenda at the intersection of hospital medicine and geriatric medicine.

As the United States ages, the patient population in acute care hospitals is increasingly older and more medically complex. Despite evidence of a high burden of disease, high costs, and often poor outcomes of care, there is limited understanding of the presentation, diagnostic strategies, and management of acute illness in older adults. In this paper, we present a strategy for the development of a research agenda at the intersection of hospital and geriatric medicine. This approach is informed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) framework for identification and prioritization of research areas, emphasizing input from patients and caregivers. The framework's four components are: 1) Topic generation, 2) Gap Analysis in Systematic Review, 3) Value of information (VOI) analysis, and 4) Peer Review. An inclusive process for topic generation requiring the systematic engagement of multiple stakeholders, especially patients, is emphasized. In subsequent steps, researchers and stakeholders prioritize research topics in order to identify areas that optimize patient-centeredness, population impact, impact on clinical decision making, ease of implementation, and durability. Finally, next steps for dissemination of the research agenda and evaluation of the impact of the patient-centered research prioritization process are described.

Cost estimates for operating a primary care practice facilitation program.

PURPOSE: Practice facilitation is widely recognized as a promising method for achieving large-scale practice redesign. Little is known, however, about the cost of providing practice facilitation to small primary practices from the prospective of an organization providing facilitation activities. METHODS: We report practice facilitation costs on 19 practices in South Texas that were randomized to receive facilitation activities. The study design assured that each practice received at least 6 practice facilitation visits during the intervention year. We examined only the variable cost associated with practice facilitation activities. Fixed or administrative costs of providing facilitation actives were not captured. All facilitator activities (time, mileage, and materials) were self-reported by the practice facilitators and recorded in spreadsheets. RESULTS: The median total variable cost of all practice facilitation activities from start-up through monitoring, including travel and food, was $9,670 per practice (ranging from $8,050 to $15,682). Median travel and food costs were an additional $2,054 but varied by clinic. Approximately 50% of the total cost is attributable to practice assessment and start-up activities, with another 31% attributable to practice facilitation visits. Sensitivity analysis suggests that a 24-visit practice facilitation protocol increased estimated median total variable costs of all practice facilitation activities only by $5,428, for a total of $15,098. CONCLUSIONS: We found that, depending on the facilitators wages and the intensity of the intervention, the cost of practice facilitation ranges between $9,670 and $15,098 per practice per year and have the potential to be cost-neutral from a societal prospective if practice facilitation results in 2 fewer hospitalizations per practice per year.

The importance of relational coordination and reciprocal learning for chronic illness care within primary care teams.

BACKGROUND: Recent research from a complexity theory perspective suggests that implementation of complex models of care, such as the Chronic Care Model (CCM), requires strong relationships and learning capacities among primary care teams. PURPOSES: Our primary aim was to assess the extent to which practice member perceptions of relational coordination and reciprocal learning were associated with the presence of CCM elements in community-based primary care practices. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We used baseline measures from a cluster randomized controlled trial testing a practice facilitation intervention to implement the CCM and improve risk factor control for patients with Type 2 diabetes in small primary care practices. Practice members (i.e., physicians, nonphysician providers, and staff) completed baseline assessments, which included the Relational Coordination Scale, Reciprocal Learning Scale, and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) survey, along with items assessing individual and clinic characteristics. To assess the association between Relational Coordination, Reciprocal Learning, and ACIC, we used a series of hierarchical linear regression models accounting for clustering of individual practice members within clinics and controlling for individual- and practice-level characteristics and tested for mediation effects. FINDINGS: A total of 283 practice members from 39 clinics completed baseline measures. Relational Coordination scores were significantly and positively associated with ACIC scores (Model 1). When Reciprocal Learning was added, Relational Coordination remained a significant yet notably attenuated predictor of ACIC (Model 2). The mediation effect was significant (z = 9.3, p < .01); 24% of the association between Relational Coordination and ACIC scores was explained by Reciprocal Learning. Of the individual- and practice-level covariates included in Model 3, only the presence of an electronic medical record was significant; Relational Coordination and Reciprocal Learning remained significant independent predictors of ACIC. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Efforts to implement complex models of care should incorporate strategies to strengthen relational coordination and reciprocal learning among team members.

Impact of the Chronic Care Model on medication adherence when patients perceive cost as a barrier.

AIMS: Cost burdens represent a significant barrier to medication adherence among chronically ill patients, yet financial pressures may be mitigated by clinical or organizational factors, such as treatment aligned with the Chronic Care Model (CCM). This study examines how perceptions of chronic illness care attenuate the relationship between adherence and cost burden. METHODS: Surveys were administered to patients at 40 small community-based primary care practices. Medication adherence was assessed using the 4-item Morisky scale, while five cost-related items documented recent pharmacy restrictions. CCM experiences were assessed via the 20-item Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Nested random effects models determined if chronic care perceptions modified the association between medication adherence and cost-related burden. RESULTS: Of 1823 respondents reporting diabetes and other chronic diseases, one-quarter endorsed intrapersonal adherence barriers, while 23% restricted medication due of cost. Controlling for age and health status, the relationship between medication cost and CCM with adherence was significant; including PACIC scores attenuated cost-related problems patients with adequate or problematic adherence behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experiencing treatment more consistent with the CCM reported better adherence and lower cost-related burden. Fostering highly activated patients and shared clinical decision making may help alleviate medication cost pressures and improve adherence.