Consideration of substance use in compensation and pension examinations of veterans filing PTSD claims.

Veterans filing claims that service-induced PTSD impairs them worry that claims examiners may attribute their difficulties to conditions other than PTSD, such as substance use. Substance use commonly co-occurs with PTSD and complicates establishing a PTSD diagnosis because symptoms may be explained by PTSD alone, PTSD-induced substance use, or by a substance use condition independent of PTSD. These alternative explanations of symptoms lead to different conclusions about whether a PTSD diagnosis can be made. How substance use impacts an examiner's diagnosis of PTSD in a Veteran's service-connection claim has not been previously studied. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that mention of risky substance use in the Compensation & Pension (C&P) examination would result in a lower likelihood of service-connection award, presumably because substance use reflected an alternative explanation for symptoms. Data were analyzed from 208 Veterans' C&P examinations, medical records, and confidentially-collected research assessments. In this sample, 165/208 (79%) Veterans' claims were approved for a mental health condition; 70/83 (84%) with risky substance use mentioned and 95/125 (76%) without risky use mentioned (p = .02). Contrary to the a priori hypothesis, Veterans with risky substance use were more likely to get a service-connection award, even after controlling for baseline PTSD severity and other potential confounds. They had almost twice the odds of receiving any mental health award and 2.4 times greater odds of receiving an award for PTSD specifically. These data contradict assertions of bias against Veterans with risky substance use when their claims are reviewed. The data are more consistent with substance use often being judged as a symptom of PTSD. The more liberal granting of awards is consistent with literature concerning comorbid PTSD and substance use, and with claims procedures that make it more likely that substance use will be attributed to trauma exposure than to other causes.

Mixed methods formative evaluation of a collaborative care program to decrease risky opioid prescribing and increase non-pharmacologic approaches to pain management.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid prescribing and subsequent rates of serious harms have dramatically increased in the past two decades, yet there are still significant barriers to reduction of risky opioid regimens. This formative evaluation utilized a mixed-methods approach to identify barriers and factors that may facilitate the successful implementation of Primary Care-Integrated Pain Support (PIPS), a clinical program designed to support the reduction of risky opioid regimens while increasing the uptake of non-pharmacologic treatment modalities. METHODS: Eighteen Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees across three sites completed a survey consisting of the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale; a subset of these individuals (n = 9) then completed a semi-structured qualitative phone interview regarding implementing PIPS within the VA. ORIC results were analyzed using descriptive statistics while interview transcripts were coded and sorted according to qualitative themes. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis based on ORIC indicated high levels of organizational readiness to implement PIPS. Interview analysis revealed several salient themes: system-level barriers such as tension among various pain management providers; patient-level barriers such as perception of support and tension between patient and provider; and facilitating factors of PIPS, such as the importance of the clinical pharmacist role. CONCLUSIONS: While organizational readiness for implementing PIPS appears high, modifications to our implementation facilitation strategy (e.g., establishing clinical pharmacists as champions; marketing PIPS to leadership as a way to improve VA opioid safety metrics) may improve capacity of the sites to implement PIPS successfully.