Types of Engagement Strategies to Engage High-Risk Patients in VA.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare systems seek to improve care for complex high-risk patients, but engaging such patients to actively participate in their healthcare can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe types of patient engagement strategies reported as successfully deployed by providers/teams and experienced by patients in a Veterans Health Administration (VA) intensive primary care (IPC) pilot program. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 29 VA IPC staff (e.g., physicians, nurses, psychologists) and 51 patients who had at least four IPC team encounters. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach. RESULTS: The engagement strategies successfully deployed by the IPC providers/teams could be considered either more "facilitative," i.e., facilitated by and dependent on staff actions, or more "self-sustaining," i.e., taught to patients, thus cultivating their ongoing patient self-care. Facilitative strategies revolved around enhancing patient access and coordination of care, trust-building, and addressing social determinants of health. Self-sustaining strategies were oriented around patient empowerment and education, caregiver and/or community support, and boundaries and responsibilities. When patients described their experiences with the "facilitative" strategies, many discussed positive proximal outcomes (e.g., increased access to healthcare providers). Self-sustaining strategies led to positive (self-reported) longer-term clinical outcomes, such as behavior change. CONCLUSION: We identified two categories of strategies for successfully engaging complex, high-risk patients: facilitative and self-sustaining. Intensive primary care program leaders may consider thoughtfully building "self-sustaining" engagement strategies into program development. Future research can confirm their effectiveness in improving health outcomes.

What Do Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) Teams Need to Improve Care for Primary Care Patients with Complex Needs?

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care (IPC) programs for patients with complex needs do not generate cost savings in most settings. Strengthening existing patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) to address the needs of these patients in primary care is a potential high-value alternative. OBJECTIVES: Explore PCMH team functioning and characteristics that may impact their ability to perform IPC tasks; identify the IPC components that could be incorporated into PCMH teams' workflow; and identify additional resources, trainings, and staff needed to better manage patients with complex needs in primary care. METHODS: We interviewed 44 primary care leaders, PCMH team members (providers, nurses, social workers), and IPC program leaders at 5 VA IPC sites and analyzed a priori themes using a matrix analysis approach. RESULTS: Higher-functioning PCMH teams were described as already performing most IPC tasks, including panel management and care coordination. All sites reported that PCMH teams had the knowledge and skills to perform IPC tasks, but not with the same intensity as specialized IPC teams. Home visits/assessments and co-attending appointments were perceived as not feasible to perform. Key stakeholders identified 6 categories of supports and capabilities that PCMH teams would need to better manage complex patients, with care coordination/management and fully staffed teams as the most frequently mentioned. Many thought that PCMH teams could make better use of existing VA and non-VA resources, but might need training in identifying and using those resources. CONCLUSIONS: PCMH teams can potentially offer certain clinic-based services associated with IPC programs, but tasks that are time intensive or require physical absence from clinic might require collaboration with community service providers and better use of internal and external healthcare system resources. Future studies should explore the feasibility of PCMH adoption of IPC tasks and the impact on patient outcomes.

Outcomes that Matter: High-Needs Patients' and Primary Care Leaders' Perspectives on an Intensive Primary Care Pilot.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value. OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients. DESIGN: A total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: High-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites. APPROACH: We used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects. KEY RESULTS: Patients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort's numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC's effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy).

Aging in place within permanent supportive housing.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether and how permanent supportive housing (PSH) programs are able to support aging in place among tenants with serious mental illness. DESIGN: Investigators used a mixed-method approach known as a convergent parallel design in which quantitative and qualitative data are analyzed separately and findings are merged during interpretation. Quantitative analysis compared 1-year pre-residential and post-residential outcomes for PSH program enrollees, comparing adults aged 35-49 years (n = 3990) with those aged 50 years or older (n = 3086). Case study analysis using qualitative interviews with staff of a PSH program that exclusively served older adults identified challenges to providing support services. RESULTS: Substantial declines in days spent homeless and in justice system settings were found, along with increases in days living independently in apartments and in congregate settings. Homelessness and justice system involvement declined less for older adults than younger adults. Qualitative themes related to working with older adults included increased attention to medical vulnerability, residual effects of institutional care, and perceived preference for congregate living. CONCLUSIONS: PSH is an effective way to end homelessness, yet little is known about how programs can support housing stability among aging populations. Additional support and training for PSH staff will better promote successful aging in place.

Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM. DESIGN: Secondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. SETTING: Five integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions. PARTICIPANTS: Staff and high-risk PC patients in the VA. INTERVENTION: A multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: (a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain. RESULTS: Most (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.

Patient selection strategies in an intensive primary care program.

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care programs have had variable impacts on clinical outcomes, possibly due to a lack of consensus on appropriate patient-selection. The US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted an intensive primary care program, known as Patient Aligned Care Team Intensive Management (PIM), in five medical centers. We sought to describe the PIM patient selection process used by PIM teams and to explore perspectives of PIM team members regarding how patient selection processes functioned in context. METHODS: This study employs an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. We analyzed qualitative interviews with 21 PIM team and facility leaders and electronic health record (EHR) data from 2,061 patients screened between July 2014 and September 2017 for PIM enrollment. Qualitative data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1,887 patients identified for PIM services using standardized criteria, over half were deemed inappropriate for PIM services, either because of not having an ambulatory care sensitive condition, living situation, or were already receiving recommended care. Qualitative analysis found that team members considered standardized criteria to be a useful starting point but too broad to be relied on exclusively. Additional data collection through chart review and communication with the current primary care team was needed to adequately assess patient complexity. Qualitative analysis further found that differences in conceptualizing program goals led to conflicting opinions of which patients should be enrolled in PIM. CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach that includes clinical judgment, case review, standardized criteria, and targeted program goals are all needed to support appropriate patient selection processes.

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.

Fidelity to the housing first model and effectiveness of permanent supported housing programs in California.

OBJECTIVES: Permanent supported housing programs are being implemented throughout the United States. This study examined the relationship between fidelity to the Housing First model and residential outcomes among clients of full service partnerships (FSPs) in California. METHODS: This study had a mixed-methods design. Quantitative administrative and survey data were used to describe FSP practices and to examine the association between fidelity to Housing First and residential outcomes in the year before and after enrollment of 6,584 FSP clients in 86 programs. Focus groups at 20 FSPs provided qualitative data to enhance the understanding of these findings with actual accounts of housing-related experiences in high- and low-fidelity programs. RESULTS: Prior to enrollment, the mean days of homelessness were greater at high- versus low-fidelity (101 versus 46 days) FSPs. After adjustment for individual characteristics, the analysis found that days spent homeless after enrollment declined by 87 at high-fidelity programs and by 34 at low-fidelity programs. After adjustment for days spent homeless before enrollment, days spent homeless after enrollment declined by 63 at high-fidelity programs and by 53 at low-fidelity programs. After enrollment, clients at high-fidelity programs spent more than 60 additional days in apartments than clients at low-facility programs. Differences were found between high- and low-fidelity FSPs in client choice in housing and how much clients' goals were considered in housing placement. CONCLUSIONS: Programs with greater fidelity to the Housing First model enrolled clients with longer histories of homelessness and placed most of them in apartments.

Variation in the implementation of California's Full Service Partnerships for persons with serious mental illness.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined variation in the implementation of California's Full Service Partnerships (FSPs), which are supported housing programs that do "whatever it takes" to improve outcomes among persons with serious mental illness who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. DATA SOURCES/SETTING: Ninety-three FSPs in California. STUDY DESIGN: A mixed methods approach was selected to develop a better understanding of the complexity of the FSP programs. The design structure was a combined explanatory and exploratory sequential design (qual→QUAN→qual) where a qualitative focus group was used to develop a quantitative survey that was followed by qualitative site visits. The survey was used to describe the breadth of variation based on fidelity to the Housing First model, while the site visits were used to provide a depth of information on high- versus low-fidelity programs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found substantial variation in implementation among FSPs. Fidelity was particularly low along domains related with housing and service philosophy, indicating that many FSPs implemented a rich array of services but applied housing readiness requirements and did not adhere to consumer choice in housing. CONCLUSIONS: There remains room for improvement in the recovery-orientation of FSPs. Fortunately, we have identified several processes by which program managers and counties can increase the fidelity of their programs.