Veterans Health Administration National TeleOncology Service.

PURPOSE: As the largest integrated health care system in the United States, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) is a leader in telehealth-delivered care. All 10 million Veterans cared for within the VA are eligible for telehealth. The VA cares for approximately 46,000 Veteran patients with newly diagnosed cancer and an estimated 400,000 prevalent cases annually. With nearly 38% of VA health care system users residing in rural areas and only 44% of rural counties having an oncologist, many Veterans lack local access to specialized cancer services. METHODS: We describe the VA's National TeleOncology (NTO) Service. NTO was established to provide Veterans with the opportunity for specialized treatment regardless of geographical location. Designed as a hub-and-spoke model, VA oncologists from across the country can provide care to patients at spoke sites. Spoke sites are smaller and rural VA medical centers that are less able to independently provide the full range of services available at larger facilities. In addition to smaller rural spoke sites, NTO also provides subspecialized oncology care to Veterans located in larger VA medical facilities that do not have subspecialties available or that have limited capacity. RESULTS: As of fiscal year 2021, 23 clinics are served by or engaged in planning for delivery of NTO and there are 24 physicians providing care through the NTO virtual hub. Most NTO physicians continue to provide patient care in separate traditional in-person clinics. Approximately 4,300 unique Veterans have used NTO services. Approximately half (52%) of Veterans using NTO lived in rural areas. Most of these Veterans had more than one remote visit through NTO. CONCLUSION: NTO is a state-of-the-art model that has the potential to revolutionize the way cancer care is delivered, which should improve the experience of Veterans receiving cancer care.

Veterans Affairs Primary Care Provider Perceptions of Insomnia Treatment.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Insomnia is a widespread issue among United States adults and rates of insomnia among veterans are even higher than the general population. Prior research examining primary care provider (PCP) perspectives on insomnia treatment found that: sleep hygiene and pharmacotherapy are the primary treatments offered; PCPs tend to focus on perceived causes of insomnia rather than the insomnia itself; and neither patients nor providers are satisfied with insomnia treatment options. Although insomnia complaints are typically first reported to primary care providers, little research has focused on perspectives regarding insomnia treatment among PCPs working in the largest integrated health care system in the United States-the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. This study was conducted to examine VA PCP perceptions of the availability of insomnia treatments, identify specific strategies offered by PCPs, and examine perceptions regarding the importance of treating insomnia and the role of comorbid conditions. METHODS: A survey was conducted within the VA health care system. Primary care providers completed surveys electronically. RESULTS: A high percentage of veterans (modal response = 20% to 39%) seen in VA primary care settings report an insomnia complaint to their provider. Almost half of respondents do not consistently document insomnia in the medical record (46% endorsed "sometimes," "rarely," or "never"). PCPs routinely advise sleep hygiene recommendations for insomnia (ie, avoid stimulants before bedtime [84.3%], and keep the bedroom environment quiet and dark and comfortable [68.6%]) and many are uncertain if cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia is available at their facility (43.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Findings point to the need for systems-level changes within health care systems, including the adoption of evidence-based clinical practice standards for insomnia and PCP education about the processes that maintain insomnia. COMMENTARY: A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 937.

Enhancing communication between oncologists and patients with a computer-based training program: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Quality cancer care requires addressing patients' emotions, which oncologists infrequently do. Multiday courses can teach oncologists skills to handle emotion; however, such workshops are long and costly. OBJECTIVE: To test whether a brief, computerized intervention improves oncologist responses to patient expressions of negative emotion. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial stratified by site, sex, and oncologic specialty. Oncologists were randomly assigned to receive a communication lecture or the lecture plus a tailored CD-ROM. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00276627) SETTING: Oncology clinics at a comprehensive cancer center and Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, and a comprehensive cancer center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: 48 medical, gynecologic, and radiation oncologists and 264 patients with advanced cancer. INTERVENTION: Oncologists were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive an interactive CD-ROM about responding to patients' negative emotions. The CD-ROM included tailored feedback on the oncologists' own recorded conversations. MEASUREMENTS: Postintervention audio recordings were used to identify the number of empathic statements and responses to patients' expressions of negative emotion. Surveys evaluated patients' trust in their oncologists and perceptions of their oncologists' communication skills. RESULTS: Oncologists in the intervention group used more empathic statements (relative risk, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1 to 3.3]; P = 0.024) and were more likely to respond to negative emotions empathically (odds ratio, 2.1 [CI, 1.1 to 4.2]; P = 0.028) than control oncologists. Patients of intervention oncologists reported greater trust in their oncologists than did patients of control oncologists (estimated mean difference, 0.1 [CI, 0.0 to 0.2]; P = 0.036). There was no significant difference in perceptions of communication skills. LIMITATIONS: Long-term effects were not examined. The findings may not be generalizable outside of academic medical centers. CONCLUSION: A brief computerized intervention improves how oncologists respond to patients' expressions of negative emotions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

A multidimensional integrative medicine intervention to improve cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Integrative medicine is an individualized, patient-centered approach to health, combining a whole-person model with evidence-based medicine. Interventions based in integrative medicine theory have not been tested as cardiovascular risk-reduction strategies. Our objective was to determine whether personalized health planning (PHP), an intervention based on the theories and principles underlying integrative medicine, reduces 10-year risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial among 154 outpatients age 45 or over, with 1 or more known cardiovascular risk factors. Subjects were enrolled from primary care practices near an academic medical center, and the intervention was delivered at a university Center for Integrative Medicine. Following a health risk assessment, each subject in the intervention arm worked with a health coach and a medical provider to construct a personalized health plan. The plan identified specific health behaviors important for each subject to modify; the choice of behaviors was driven both by cardiovascular risk reduction and the interests of each individual subject. The coach then assisted each subject in implementing her/his health plan. Techniques used in implementation included mindfulness meditation, relaxation training, stress management, motivational techniques, and health education and coaching. Subjects randomized to the comparison group received usual care (UC) without access to the intervention. Our primary outcome measure was 10-year risk of CHD, as measured by a standard Framingham risk score, and assessed at baseline, 5, and 10 months. Differences between arms were assessed by linear mixed effects modeling, with time and study arm as independent variables. RESULTS: Baseline 10-year risk of CHD was 11.1% for subjects randomized to UC (n=77), and 9.3% for subjects randomized to PHP (n=77). Over 10 months of the intervention, CHD risk decreased to 9.8% for UC subjects and 7.8% for intervention subjects. Based on a linear mixed-effects model, there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of risk improvement between the 2 arms (P=.04). In secondary analyses, subjects in the PHP arm were found to have increased days of exercise per week compared with UC (3.7 vs 2.4, P=.002), and subjects who were overweight on entry into the study had greater weight loss in the PHP arm compared with UC (P=.06). CONCLUSIONS: A multidimensional intervention based on integrative medicine principles reduced risk of CHD, possibly by increasing exercise and improving weight loss.