What are the key elements for implementing intensive primary care? A multisite Veterans Health Administration case study.

Many integrated health systems and accountable care organizations have turned to intensive primary care programs to improve quality of care and reduce costs for high-need high-cost patients. How best to implement such programs remains an active area of discussion. In 2014, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented five distinct intensive primary care programs as part of a demonstration project that targeted Veterans at the highest risk for hospitalization. We found that programs evolved over time, eventually converging on the implementation of the following elements: 1) an interdisciplinary care team, 2) chronic disease management, 3) comprehensive patient assessment and evaluation, 4) care and case management, 5) transitional care support, 6) preventive home visits, 7) pharmaceutical services, 8) chronic disease self-management, 9) caregiver support services, 10) health coaching, and 11) advanced care planning. The teams also found that including social workers and mental health providers on the interdisciplinary teams was critical to effectively address psychosocial needs of these complex patients. Having a central implementation coordinator facilitated the convergence of these program features across diverse demonstration sites. In future iterations of these programs, VHA intends to standardize staffing and key features to develop a scalable program that can be disseminated throughout the system.

Development and Implementation of Team-Based Panel Management Tools: Filling the Gap between Patient and Population Information Systems.

Effective team-based models of care, such as the Patient-Centered Medical Home, require electronic tools to support proactive population management strategies that emphasize care coordination and quality improvement. Despite the spread of electronic health records (EHRs) and vendors marketing population health tools, clinical practices still may lack the ability to have: (1) local control over types of data collected/reports generated, (2) timely data (eg, up-to-date data, not several months old), and accordingly (3) the ability to efficiently monitor and improve patient outcomes. This article describes a quality improvement project at the hospital system level to develop and implement a flexible panel management (PM) tool to improve care of subpopulations of patients (eg, panels of patients with diabetes) by clinical teams. An in-depth case analysis approach is used to explore barriers and facilitators in building a PM registry tool for team-based management needs using standard data elements (eg, laboratory values, pharmacy records) found in EHRs. Also described are factors that may contribute to sustainability; to date the tool has been adapted to 6 disease-focused subpopulations encompassing more than 200,000 patients. Two key lessons emerged from this initiative: (1) though challenging, team-based clinical end users and information technology needed to work together consistently to refine the product, and (2) locally developed population management tools can provide efficient data tracking for frontline clinical teams and leadership. The preliminary work identified critical gaps that were successfully addressed by building local PM registry tools from EHR-derived data and offers lessons learned for others engaged in similar work. (Population Health Management 2016;19:232-239).

Effective antimicrobial stewardship in a long-term care facility through an infectious disease consultation service: keeping a LID on antibiotic use.

DESIGN: We introduced a long-term care facility (LTCF) infectious disease (ID) consultation service (LID service) that provides on-site consultations to residents of a Veterans Affairs (VA) LTCF. We determined the impact of the LID service on antimicrobial use and Clostridium difficile infections at the LTCF. SETTING: A 160-bed VA LTCF. METHODS: Systemic antimicrobial use and positive C. difficile tests at the LTCF were compared for the 36 months before and the 18 months after the initiation of the ID consultation service through segmented regression analysis of an interrupted time series. RESULTS: Relative to that in the preintervention period, total systemic antibiotic administration decreased by 30% (P<.001), with significant reductions in both oral (32%; P<.001) and intravenous (25%; P=.008) agents. The greatest reductions were seen for tetracyclines (64%; P<.001), clindamycin (61%; P<.001), sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (38%; P<.001), fluoroquinolones (38%; P<.001), and ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations (28%; P<.001). The rate of positive C. difficile tests at the LTCF declined in the postintervention period relative to preintervention rates (P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an LTCF ID service led to a significant reduction in total antimicrobial use. Bringing providers with ID expertise to the LTCF represents a new and effective means to achieve antimicrobial stewardship.