Primary Care Team Members Report Greater Individual Benefits from Long- Versus Short-Term Specialty Telemedicine Mentorship.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers who participate in structured specialty telemedicine mentorship report improvements in clinical content mastery, professional satisfaction, and specialist communication. INTRODUCTION: Although these programs require investments of infrastructure resources and time, the duration of participation required to accrue optimal benefits is not known. We aimed to assess whether duration of participation is related to improved benefits of a longitudinal telemedicine-based mentorship program, specifically regarding perceived specialty care access, acquisition of new knowledge and skills, team integration, and overall job satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an e-mail survey of Veterans Affairs-based primary care team members in the United States' Pacific Northwest region who engaged in a longitudinal telemedicine mentorship program (n = 78). RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounding factors, respondents who engaged in telemedicine mentorship for ≥1 year were significantly more likely to strongly agree that telemedicine mentorship improved patient access to specialty care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 9.3, p < 0.005) and was useful in treating other patients on their panels (AOR = 3.7, p = 0.04). Participation ≥1 year was also associated with higher self-reported knowledge and competencies (AOR = 4.0, p = 0.03) and with perception of integration into a clinical team (AOR = 5.6, p = 0.01), but not with overall job satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine-based specialty mentorship programs are highly valued by primary care-based participants, and self-reported benefits accumulate beyond 1 year of participation.

A pilot trial of telephone-based collaborative care management for PTSD among Iraq/Afghanistan war veterans.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care and care management are cornerstones of Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) and have been shown to reduce depressive symptoms. Historically, the standard of Veterans Affairs (VA) collaborative care was referring patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to specialty care. Although referral to evidence-based specialty care is ideal, many veterans with PTSD do not receive such care. To address this issue and reduce barriers to care, VA currently recommends veterans with PTSD be offered treatment within PC-MHI as an alternative. The current project outlines a pilot implementation of an established telephone-based collaborative care model-Translating Initiatives for Depression into Effective Solutions (TIDES)-adapted for Iraq/Afghanistan War veterans with PTSD symptoms (TIDES/PTSD) seen in a postdeployment primary care clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Structured medical record extraction and qualitative data collection procedures were used to evaluate acceptability, feasibility, and outcomes. RESULTS: Most participants (n=17) were male (94.1%) and white (70.6%). Average age was 31.2 (standard deviation=6.4) years. TIDES/PTSD was successfully implemented within PC-MHI and was acceptable to patients and staff. Additionally, the total number of care manager calls was positively correlated with number of psychiatry visits (r=0.63, p<0.05) and amount of reduction in PTSD symptoms (r=0.66, p<0.05). Overall, participants in the pilot reported a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms over the course of the treatment (t=2.87, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: TIDES can be successfully adapted and implemented for use among Iraq/Afghanistan veterans with PTSD. Further work is needed to test the effectiveness and implementation of this model in other sites and among veterans of other eras.

Computerized provider documentation: findings and implications of a multisite study of clinicians and administrators.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical documentation is central to the medical record and so to a range of healthcare and business processes. As electronic health record adoption expands, computerized provider documentation (CPD) is increasingly the primary means of capturing clinical documentation. Previous CPD studies have focused on particular stakeholder groups and sites, often limiting their scope and conclusions. To address this, we studied multiple stakeholder groups from multiple sites across the USA. METHODS: We conducted 14 focus groups at five Department of Veterans Affairs facilities with 129 participants (54 physicians or practitioners, 34 nurses, and 37 administrators). Investigators qualitatively analyzed resultant transcripts, developed categories linked to the data, and identified emergent themes. RESULTS: Five major themes related to CPD emerged: communication and coordination; control and limitations in expressivity; information availability and reasoning support; workflow alteration and disruption; and trust and confidence concerns. The results highlight that documentation intertwines tightly with clinical and administrative workflow. Perceptions differed between the three stakeholder groups but remained consistent within groups across facilities. CONCLUSIONS: CPD has dramatically changed documentation processes, impacting clinical understanding, decision-making, and communication across multiple groups. The need for easy and rapid, yet structured and constrained, documentation often conflicts with the need for highly reliable and retrievable information to support clinical reasoning and workflows. Current CPD systems, while better than paper overall, often do not meet the needs of users, partly because they are based on an outdated 'paper-chart' paradigm. These findings should inform those implementing CPD systems now and future plans for more effective CPD systems.

An exploration of the impact of computerized patient documentation on clinical collaboration.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the experience of experienced users of computerized patient documentation for the purpose of collaboration and coordination. A secondary analysis of qualitative data using Clark's theoretical framework of communication was conducted with the goal of bringing research findings into design. METHODS: Physicians, nurses and administrative staff volunteered to participate in focus groups at 4 VA sites. Each focus group lasted 1.5h and targeted experience and issues with using computerized documentation. All focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed and submitted to extensive qualitative analysis using ATLAS, iterative identification of concepts and categories. The communication category was targeted for secondary theoretical analysis in order to deepen understanding of the findings. Clark's theory of communication, joint action and common ground heuristics was used to analyze concepts. RESULTS: Key concepts included: (1) CPD has changed the way that narrative documentation is used in clinical settings to include more communication functions, strategies to establish joint action in both negative and positive ways; (2) functionality added to CPD to increase the efficiency of input may have increased the efficiency of CPD to support shared situation models, joint and action and the establishment of common ground; (3) new usage of CPD may increase tensions between clinical and administrative roles as the role of narrative is re-defined. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how socio-technical systems co-evolve to support essential human function of coordination and collaboration. Users adapted the system in unique and useful ways that provide insight to future development.

Initial Steps toward Validating and Measuring the Quality of Computerized Provider Documentation.

BACKGROUND: Concerns exist about the quality of electronic health care documentation. Prior studies have focused on physicians. This investigation studied document quality perceptions of practitioners (including physicians), nurses and administrative staff. METHODS: An instrument developed from staff interviews and literature sources was administered to 110 practitioners, nurses and administrative staff. Short, long and original versions of records were rated. RESULTS: Length transformation did not affect quality ratings. On several scales practitioners rated notes less favorably than administrators or nurses. The original source document was associated with the quality rating, as was tf·idf, a relevance statistic computed from document text. Tf·idf was strongly associated with practitioner quality ratings. CONCLUSION: Document quality estimates were not sensitive to modifying redundancy in documents. Some perceptions of quality differ by role. Intrinsic document properties are associated with staff judgments of document quality. For practitioners, the tf·idf statistic was strongly associated with the quality dimensions evaluated.

Implementing electronic clinical reminders for lipid management in patients with ischemic heart disease in the veterans health administration: QUERI Series.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic heart disease (IHD) affects at least 150,000 veterans annually in the United States. Lowering serum cholesterol has been shown to reduce coronary events, cardiac death, and total mortality among high risk patients. Electronic clinical reminders available at the point of care delivery have been developed to improve lipid measurement and management in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Our objective was to report on a hospital-level intervention to implement and encourage use of the electronic clinical reminders. METHODS: The implementation used a quasi-experimental design with a comparison group of hospitals. In the intervention hospitals (N = 3), we used a multi-faceted intervention to encourage use of the electronic clinical reminders. We evaluated the degree of reminder use and how patient-level outcomes varied at the intervention and comparison sites (N = 3), with and without adjusting for self-reported reminder use. RESULTS: The national electronic clinical reminders were implemented in all of the intervention sites during the intervention period. A total of 5,438 patients with prior diagnosis of ischemic heart disease received care in the six hospitals (3 intervention and 3 comparison) throughout the 12-month intervention. The process evaluation showed variation in use of reminders at each site. Without controlling for provider self-report of use of the reminders, there appeared to be a significant improvement in lipid measurement in the intervention sites (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.34, 2.88). Controlling for use of reminders, the amount of improvement in lipid measurement in the intervention sites was even greater (OR 2.35, CI 1.96, 2.81). Adjusting for reminder use demonstrated that only one of the intervention hospitals had a significant effect of the intervention. There was no significant change in management of hyperlipidemia associated with the intervention. CONCLUSION: There may be some benefit to focused effort to implement electronic clinical reminders, although reminders designed to improve relatively simple tasks, such as ordering tests, may be more beneficial than reminders designed to improve more complex tasks, such as initiating or titrating medications, because of the less complex nature of the task. There is value in monitoring the process, as well as outcome, of an implementation effort.

Adherence with statin therapy in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in veterans administration male population.

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 8,768 male Veterans Administration patients with coronary heart disease who were prescribed statins from July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2000. After 18 months of follow-up, 71% of the patients had been dispensed >or=80% of the medication. Our population's persistence in using statins was higher than in other open-population cohorts but lower than in randomized controlled trials.

Evaluation of the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinics.

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the history of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs), CBOC Performance Evaluation Project, and characteristics of CBOCs within the VA, and summarizes the findings and implications of the CBOC Performance Evaluation Project. SUBJECTS: There were 139 CBOCs in operation at the end of fiscal year 1998. Ninety-eight percent of CBOCs offered primary health care, and 28% offered primary health care and primary mental health care. The average CBOC was 70.7 miles from its parent VAMC. Sixty-one percent of the CBOCs were located in urban areas and 39% were in rural areas. Sixty-four percent of the CBOCs were VA-staff and 36% were contract. RESULTS: The details of the project's findings are reported in four companion papers that describe, respectively, health care access and utilization, cost of care, patient perceptions of care, and quality of care in VA CBOCs. For most measures, CBOC performance was equivalent to their parent VAMCs. However, there were a few areas of potential concern: CBOCs had fewer patients that reported having one provider or team in charge of care; CBOC patients had fewer specialty visits; and CBOCs served a smaller percent of women and black persons. CONCLUSION: CBOCs appear to be performing comparably to their parent medical centers but will benefit from ongoing monitoring.

VA community-based outpatient clinics: access and utilization performance measures.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare access and utilization performance measures between Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOC) and primary care clinics at parent VA Medical Centers (VAMC) and between VA-staff CBOCs and contract CBOCs. METHODS: The study design was cross-sectional and retrospective. Performance measures were based on data routinely collected for administrative and research purposes by the VA. The sample included all primary care patients (n = 37,084) treated at the 38 CBOCs opened before 4/1/98 (30 VA-staff and 8 contract) and all primary care patients (n = 318,369) treated at the 32 parent VAMCs. Six months of service use data were used to derive the access and utilization performance measures. Multivariate regression analyses were used to control for observable casemix differences. RESULTS: CBOCs are attracting new high priority patients to the VA health care system. CBOC patients had more primary care encounters and fewer specialty encounters than patients in the primary care clinics of the parent VAMCs. VA-staffed CBOC patients had more primary care encounters and fewer specialty encounters than contract CBOC patients. CONCLUSIONS: CBOCs are helping the VA achieve its goals of attracting new patients and shifting the focus of care from the specialty to the primary care setting.

VA community-based outpatient clinics: quality of care performance measures.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) recently initiated a system of Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) to enhance delivery of primary care to veterans. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare quality of care provided to veterans at CBOCs and at traditional hospital-based VA Medical Center (VAMC) clinics. RESEARCH DESIGN: Quality of care was assessed using medical record data abstracted at CBOCs and VAMCs. The analysis used a logistic regression model that allowed for possible within-facility correlation and controlled for patient differences between facilities. SUBJECTS: The study included 4768 patients from 20 geographically diverse CBOCs and 2433 patients from the 20 VAMCs associated with these CBOCs. MEASURES: Quality of care was measured using 7 Prevention Index (PI) indicators and 9 Chronic Disease Care Index (CDCI) indicators, which assess compliance with nationally recognized guidelines for primary prevention, early disease detection, and care of patients with chronic disease. RESULTS: In the overall CBOC versus VAMC comparisons, performance was not significantly different on 15 of the 16 PI and CDCI indicators. In the comparisons between individual CBOCs and VAMCs pairs, 5 out of 20 CBOCs performed significantly below the affiliated VAMC on 4 or more indicators. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that CBOCs overall are providing a similar level of quality of care as VAMCs based on the PI and CDCI, although performance at several individual CBOCs fell below their affiliated VAMC on some indicators. Therefore, it appears that CBOCs are a valid approach for providing quality primary care to veterans.

VA community-based outpatient clinics: performance measures based on patient perceptions of care.

BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently initiated a system of Community- Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) to enhance delivery of primary care to veterans. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of CBOCs on patients' perceptions of care. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study design is a cross-sectional survey. SUBJECTS: This study compares 4,980 patients from 44 geographically diverse CBOCs to 4,159 patients from 36 parent VA Medical Center primary care clinics administratively and geographically associated with the CBOCs studied. MEASURES: Survey data were obtained from the 1998 VA National Outpatient Customer Satisfaction Survey which assesses eight multiitem scales addressing access and timeliness of care, education/information, patient preferences, emotional support, coordination of care, courtesy, and specialty care access. Each scale was evaluated based upon item responses that indicate a problem with care. The survey also contained SF-12 health status measures used for case-mix adjustment. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression controlling for patient health status measures revealed that CBOC patients reported fewer problems with care than VA-based patients on 7 of 8 scales though the absolute differences were small for most of the scales. The largest difference was observed for the access/timeliness scale. Significant differences between VA-staff and contract CBOCs were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that veterans participating in VA's initiative to provide primary care in community-based settings report no more than, and in some dimensions fewer problems with care compared with veterans who receive care in VAMC clinics.

VA community-based outpatient clinics: cost performance measures.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the direct costs of treating veterans in Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOC) and primary care clinics operated by VA medical centers (VAMCs) between April 1998 and September 1998. RESEARCH DESIGN: In a retrospective observational study of patients in eighteen CBOCs and fourteen VAMCs, direct costs were compared. In addition, the costs of treating patients in new and established CBOCs were also examined. MEASURES: The three types of costs examined include direct cost per primary care visit, direct primary care cost per patient, and total direct cost per patient in ordinary least squares regressions with facility-specific random effects. Indirect costs for overhead and administration were excluded. All cost comparisons controlled for patient characteristics and case-mix differences via the Diagnostic Cost Group methodology. RESULTS: Results indicate that CBOC patients and VAMC patients had similar direct primary care costs on a per visit and per patient basis. Total direct costs for CBOC patients were lower compared with VAMC patients, because of lower specialty and ancillary care costs. Patients in new CBOCs had similar primary, specialty, ancillary and inpatient care costs when compared with patients in established CBOCs. CONCLUSION: Lower total costs for CBOC patients may be a consequence of substituting primary care at CBOCs for expensive specialty and ancillary care at VAMCs. CBOCs may be an alternative approach to providing care to veterans at a lower cost than traditional delivery models based in VA Medical Centers.