National Survey of the Bone Densitometry Evaluation Process Within an Integrated Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: To assess the current state of bone mineral density evaluation services via dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) provided to Veterans with fracture risk through the development and administration of a nationwide survey of facilities in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODOLOGY: The Bone Densitometry Survey was developed by convening a Work Group of individuals with expertise in bone densitometry and engaging the Work Group in an iterative drafting and revision process. Once completed, the survey was beta tested, administered through REDCap, and sent via e-mail to points of contact at 178 VHA facilities. RESULTS: Facility response rate was 31 % (56/178). Most DXA centers reported positively to markers of readiness for their bone densitometers: less than 10 years old (n=35; 63 %); in "excellent" or "good" condition (n=44; 78 %, 32 % and 46 %, respectively); and perform phantom calibration (n=43; 77 %). Forty-one DXA centers (73 %) use intake processes that have been shown to reduce errors. Thirty-seven DXA centers (66 %) reported their technologists receive specialized training in DXA, while 14 (25 %) indicated they receive accredited training. Seventeen DXA centers (30 %) reported performing routine precision assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Many DXA centers reported using practices that meet minimal standards for DXA reporting and preparation; however, the lack of standardization, even within an integrated healthcare system, indicates an opportunity for quality improvement to ensure consistent high quality bone mineral density evaluation of Veterans.

Referrals and Decision-Making Considerations Involved in Selecting a Surgeon for Rectal Cancer Treatment in the Midwestern United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of superior outcomes for rectal cancer at high-volume, multidisciplinary cancer centers, many patients undergo surgery in low-volume hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine considerations of former patients with rectal cancer when selecting their surgeon and to evaluate which considerations were associated with surgery at high-volume hospitals. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, patients were surveyed about what they considered when selecting a cancer surgeon. SETTINGS: Study data were obtained via survey and the statewide Iowa Cancer Registry. PATIENTS: All eligible individuals diagnosed with invasive stages II/III rectal cancer from 2013 to 2017 identified through the registry were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the characteristics of the hospital where they received surgery (ie, National Cancer Institute designation, Commission on Cancer accreditation, and rectal cancer surgery volume). RESULTS: Among respondents, 318 of 417 (76%) completed surveys. Sixty-nine percent of patients selected their surgeon based on their physician's referral/recommendation, 20% based on surgeon/hospital reputation, and 11% based on personal connections to the surgeon. Participants who chose their surgeon based on reputation had significantly higher odds of surgery at National Cancer Institute-designated (OR 7.5; 95% CI, 3.8-15.0) or high-volume (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.7) hospitals than those who relied on referral. LIMITATIONS: This study took place in a Midwestern state with a predominantly white population, which limited our ability to evaluate racial/ethnic associations. CONCLUSION: Most patients with rectal cancer relied on referrals in selecting their surgeon, and those who did were less likely to receive surgery at a National Cancer Institute-designated or high-volume hospitals compared to those who considered reputation. Future research is needed to determine the impact of these decision factors on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. In addition, patients should be aware that relying on physician referral may not result in treatment from the most experienced or comprehensive care setting in their area. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897.REMISIONES Y CONSIDERACIONES PARA LA TOMA DE DECISIONES RELACIONADAS CON LA SELECCIÓN DE UN CIRUJANO PARA EL TRATAMIENTO DEL CÁNCER DE RECTO EN EL MEDIO OESTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOSANTECEDENTES:A pesar de la evidencia de resultados superiores para el tratamiento del cáncer de recto en centros oncológicos de gran volumen y multidisciplinarios, muchos pacientes se someten a cirugía en hospitales de bajo volumen.OBJETIVOS:Examinar las consideraciones de los antiguos pacientes con cáncer de recto al momento de seleccionar a su cirujano y evaluar qué consideraciones se asociaron con la cirugía en hospitales de gran volumen.DISEÑO:Encuestamos a los pacientes sobre qué aspectos consideraron al elegir un cirujano oncológico para completar este estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Los datos del estudio se obtuvieron mediante una encuesta y el Registro de Cáncer del estado de Iowa.PACIENTES:Se invitó a participar a todas las personas elegibles diagnosticadas con cáncer de recto invasivo en estadios II/III entre 2013 y 2017 identificadas a través del registro.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados principales fueron las características del hospital donde fue realizada la cirugía (es decir, designación del Instituto Nacional del Cáncer, acreditación de la Comisión de Cáncer y volumen de cirugía del cáncer de recto).RESULTADOS:Hubo 318 de 417 (76%) encuestas completadas. El sesenta y nueve por ciento seleccionó a su cirujano en función de la referencia / recomendación de su médico, el 20% por la reputación del cirujano/hospital, y el 11% por sus conexiones personales con el cirujano. Los participantes que eligieron a su cirujano en función a la reputación tuvieron probabilidades significativamente más altas de cirugía en el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer designado (OR = 7,5, IC del 95%: 3,8-15,0) o en hospitales de alto volumen (OR = 2,6, IC del 95%: 1,2-5,7) que aquellos que dependían de la derivación.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se llevó a cabo en un estado del medio oeste con una población predominantemente blanca, lo que limitó nuestra capacidad para evaluar las asociaciones raciales/étnicas.CONCLUSIONES:La mayoría de los pacientes con cáncer de recto dependían de las derivaciones para seleccionar a su cirujano, y los que lo hacían tenían menos probabilidades de recibir cirugía en un hospital designado por el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer o en hospitales de gran volumen en comparación con los que consideraban la reputación. Se necesitan investigaciones a futuro para determinar el impacto de estos factores de decisión en los resultados clínicos, la satisfacción del paciente y la calidad de vida. Además, los pacientes deben ser conscientes de que depender de la remisión de un médico puede no resultar en el tratamiento más experimentado o integral en su área. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B897. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto).

Understanding VA's Use of and Relationships With Community Care Providers Under the MISSION Act.

BACKGROUND: Congress has enacted 2 major pieces of legislation to improve access to care for Veterans within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As a result, the VA has undergone a major transformation in the way that care is delivered to Veterans with an increased reliance on community-based provider networks. No studies have examined the relationship between VA and contracted community providers. This study examines VA facility directors' perspectives on their successes and challenges building relationships with community providers within the VA Community Care Network (CCN). OBJECTIVES: To understand who VA facilities partner with for community care, highlight areas of greatest need for partnerships in various regions, and identify challenges of working with community providers in the new CCN contract. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a national survey with VA facility directors to explore needs, challenges, and expectations with the CCN. RESULTS: The most common care referred to community providers included physical therapy, chiropractic, orthopedic, ophthalmology, and acupuncture. Open-ended responses focused on 3 topics: (1) Challenges in working with community providers, (2) Strategies to maintain strong relationships with community providers, and (3) Re-engagement with community providers who no longer provide care for Veterans. CONCLUSIONS: VA faces challenges engaging with community providers given problems with timely reimbursement of community providers, low (Medicare) reimbursement rates, and confusing VA rules related to prior authorizations and bundled services. It will be critical to identify strategies to successfully initiate and sustain relationships with community providers.

Recommendations for the Evaluation of Cross-System Care Coordination from the VA State-of-the-art Working Group on VA/Non-VA Care.

In response to widespread concerns regarding Veterans' access to VA care, Congress enacted the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which required VA to establish the Veterans Choice Program (VCP). Since the inception of VCP, more than two million Veterans have received care from community providers, representing approximately 25% of Veterans enrolled in VA care. However, expanded access to non-VA care has created challenges in care coordination between VA and community health systems. In March 2018, the VA Health Services Research & Development Service hosted a VA State of the Art conference (SOTA) focused on care coordination. The SOTA convened VA researchers, program directors, clinicians, and policy makers to identify knowledge gaps regarding care coordination within the VA and between VA and community systems of care. This article provides a summary and synthesis of relevant literature and provides recommendations generated from the SOTA about how to evaluate cross-system care coordination. Care coordination is typically evaluated using health outcomes including hospital readmissions and death; however, in cross-system evaluations of care coordination, measures such as access, cost, Veteran/patient and provider satisfaction (including with cross-system communication), comparable quality metrics, context (urban vs. rural), and patient complexity (medical and mental health conditions) need to be included to fully evaluate care coordination effectiveness. Future research should examine the role of multiple individuals coordinating VA and non-VA care, and how these coordinators work together to optimize coordination.

Sexual Trauma Screening for Men and Women: Examining the Construct Validity of a Two-Item Screen.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States, has conducted universal screening for military sexual trauma (MST) to facilitate MST-related care since 2002. VHA defines MST as sexual assault or repeated, threatening sexual harassment that occurred during military service. Evidence of construct validity, the degree to which the screen is measuring what it purports to measure (i.e., MST), was examined using the 23-item Sexual Experiences Questionnaire-Department of Defense (SEQ-DoD). Results showed individuals who endorsed no SEQ-DoD items screened MST negative. Those who had experienced more SEQ-DoD behaviors with greater frequency, and across all four SEQ-DoD domains, were more likely to screen MST positive. Findings were similar for men and women. These findings contribute to the validity evidence for the VHA MST screen.