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.

Cultivating across "pockets of excellence": challenges to sustaining efforts to improve osteoporosis care.

We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with clinicians involved in bone health care to understand the challenges of implementing and sustaining bone health care interventions. Participants identified individual- and system-level challenges to care delivery, implementation, and sustainment. We discuss opportunities to address challenges through a commitment to relationship- and infrastructure-building support. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis and fracture-related sequalae exact significant individual and societal costs; however, identification and treatment of at-risk patients are troublingly low, especially among men. The purpose of this study was to identify challenges to implementing and sustaining bone health care delivery interventions in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: We conducted interviews with endocrinologists, pharmacists, primary care physicians, rheumatologists, and orthopedic surgeons involved in bone health care (n = 20). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. To determine thematic domains, we engaged in an iterative, qualitative content analysis of the transcripts. RESULTS: Participants reported multiple barriers to delivering bone health care and to sustaining the initiatives designed to address delivery challenges. Challenges of bone health care delivery existed at both the individual level-a lack of patient and clinician awareness and competing clinical demands-and the system level-multiple points of entry to bone health care, a dispersion of patient management, and guideline variability. To address the challenges, participants developed initiatives targeting the identification of at-risk patients, clinician education, increasing communication, and care coordination. Sustaining initiatives, however, was challenged by staff turnover and the inability to achieve and maintain priority status for bone health care. CONCLUSION: The multiple, multi-level barriers to bone health care affect both care delivery processes and sustainment of initiatives to improve those processes. Barriers to care delivery, while tempered by intervention, are entangled and persist alongside sustainment challenges. These challenges require relationship- and infrastructure-building support.

Patient Perspectives on Opioids: Views of Inpatient Veterans with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate perspectives on opioids and opioid use from hospitalized veterans with comorbid chronic pain using qualitative methods. DESIGN: This was an analysis of individual qualitative interviews. The semistructured interview guide was developed by a hospitalist with clinical expertise in pain treatment with guidance from a medical anthropologist. Interviews aimed to understand participants' experiences of chronic pain. SETTING: A Midwestern Veterans Health Administration inpatient hospital unit. SUBJECTS: Nineteen inpatient veterans with a history of chronic pain or antecedent opioid use. METHODS: Recently admitted veterans were screened for chronic pain diagnosis on admission and antecedent opioid use. Eligible veterans were approached to participate in an in-person interview during their hospitalization. RESULTS: The following themes were identified in relation to opioid use: other patients as the problem (by misusing opioids resulting in broad limits to opioid access), empathy for providers (perceived to be working under prescribing constraints), and opioids as a last resort. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants were not specifically questioned about opioid medications, discussion of opioids was prevalent in discussions of chronic pain. Findings suggest the potential utility of engaging hospitalized veterans in conversations about opioids and alternative pain management strategies.

Taking note: A qualitative study of implementing a scribing practice in team-based primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: Though much is known about the benefits attributed to medical scribes documenting patient visits (e.g., reducing documentation time for the provider, increasing patient-care time, expanding the roles of licensed and non-licensed personnel), little attention has been paid to how care workers enact scribing as a part of their existing practice. The purpose of this study was to perform an ethnographic process evaluation of an innovative medical scribing practice with primary care teams in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinics across the United States. The aim of our study was to understand barriers and facilitators to implementing a scribing practice in primary care. METHODS: At three to six months after medical scribing was introduced, we used semi-structured interviews and direct observations during site visits to five sites to describe the intervention, understand if the intervention was implemented as planned, and to record the experience of the teams who implemented the intervention. This manuscript only reports on semi-structured interview data collected from providers and scribes. Initial matrix analysis based on categories outlined in the evaluation plan informed subsequent deductive coding using the social-shaping theory Normalization Process Theory. RESULTS: Through illustrating the slow accumulation of interactions and knowledge that fostered cautious momentum of teams working to normalize scribing practice in VHA primary care clinics, we show how the practice had 1) an organizing effect, as it centered a shared goal (the creation of the note) between the provider, scribe, and patient, and 2) a generative effect, as it facilitated care workers developing relationships that were both interpersonally and inter-professionally valuable. Based on our findings, we suggest that a scribing practice emphasizes the complementarity of existing professional roles, which thus leverage the interactional possibilities already present in the primary care team. Scribing, as a skill, forged moments of interprofessional fit. Scribing, in practice, created opportunities for interpersonal connection. CONCLUSIONS: Our research suggests that individuals will notice different benefits to scribing based on their professional expectations and organizational roles related to documenting patient visits.

Metasynthesis of Patient Attitudes Toward Bone Densitometry.

BACKGROUND: Bone densitometry (e.g., dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or "DXA") is strongly associated with osteoporosis treatment; however, rates of DXA are low. While studies have demonstrated a continued need for primary care provider education on the role of DXA in preventive care, little is known about the role of patient attitudes toward DXA. This review's purpose is to synthesize the evidence about the effects of patient perceptions and experiences of DXA on osteoporosis prevention. METHODS: A metasynthesis was conducted of English language, peer-reviewed publications, searching relevant databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science Social Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts. Identified articles' quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist, and an iterative process of data evaluation, integration, and synthesis was used to develop the findings. RESULTS: Thirteen articles from ten studies were identified, composing an aggregated sample of 265 people (231 women). Participant attitudes toward screening ranged from receptive to ambivalent to concerned about results. Participants' understandings of DXA and its role in clinical care were limited. Knowledge of osteoporosis was also partial and influenced by lay sources, the media, and health care providers. Primary care providers strongly influenced participant behavior, especially if participants had a more passive approach to health care. Participants reported less concern about expected barriers of health care access and cost. CONCLUSION: Minimal knowledge exists of patient perceptions and experiences of DXA among those who are fracture naïve: Prior research has focused primarily on secondary fracture prevention contexts. Our metasynthesis reveals patients' significant reliance, given their limited risk appraisal and knowledge, upon primary care providers in decision-making. We urge colleagues to conduct qualitative research on DXA barriers among general primary care population in order to facilitate health care delivery systems better equipped to diagnose and treat patients before their first fracture.

RE-AIM for rural health innovations: perceptions of (mis) alignment between the RE-AIM framework and evaluation reporting in the Department of Veterans Affairs Enterprise-Wide Initiatives program.

Background: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Rural Health (ORH) supports national VA program offices' efforts to expand health care to rural Veterans through its Enterprise-Wide Initiatives (EWIs) program. In 2017, ORH selected Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM), an implementation science framework, to structure the EWI evaluation and reporting process. As part of its mandate to improve EWI program evaluation, the Center for the Evaluation of Enterprise-Wide Initiatives conducted a qualitative evaluation to better understand EWI team' perceptions of, and barriers and facilitators to, the EWI evaluation process. Methods: We conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with 48 team members (e.g., evaluators, program office leads, and field-based leads) representing 21 EWIs from April-December 2020. Questions focused on participants' experiences using strategies targeting each RE-AIM dimension. Interviews were inductively analyzed in MAXQDA. We also systematically reviewed 51 FY19-FY20 EWI annual reports to identify trends in misapplications of RE-AIM. Results: Participants had differing levels of experience with RE-AIM. While participants understood ORH's rationale for selecting a common framework to structure evaluations, the perceived misalignment between RE-AIM and EWIs' work emerged as an important theme. Concerns centered around 3 sub-themes: (1) (Mis)Alignment with RE-AIM Dimensions, (2) (Mis)Alignment between RE-AIM and the EWI, and (3) (Mis)Alignment with RE-AIM vs. other Theories, Models, or Frameworks. Participants described challenges differentiating between and operationalizing dimensions in unique contexts. Participants also had misconceptions about RE-AIM and its relevance to their work, e.g., that it was meant for established programs and did not capture aspects of initiative planning, adaptations, or sustainability. Less commonly, participants shared alternative models or frameworks to RE-AIM. Despite criticisms, many participants found RE-AIM useful, cited training as important to understanding its application, and identified additional training as a future need. Discussion: The selection of a shared implementation science framework can be beneficial, but also challenging when applied to diverse initiatives or contexts. Our findings suggest that establishing a common understanding, operationalizing framework dimensions for specific programs, and assessing training needs may better equip partners to integrate a shared framework into their evaluations.

The impact of patient-provider relationships on choosing between VA and VA-purchased care: A qualitative study of health care decision-making among rural veterans.

PURPOSE: Since the Choice Act in 2014, many Veterans have had greater options for seeking Veteran Affairs (VA)-purchased care in the community. We investigated factors that influence rural Veterans' decisions regarding where to seek care. METHODS: We utilized semi-structured telephone interviews to query Veterans living in rural or highly rural areas of Midwestern states about their health care options, preferences, and experiences. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, thematically coded, and deductively analyzed using a socioecological approach. FINDINGS: Forty rural Veterans (20 men/20 women) ages 28-76 years completed interviews in 2019. We found that rural Veterans often spoke about their relationships and interactions with providers as an important factor in deciding where to seek care. They expressed three socioecological qualities of patient-provider relationships that affected their decisions: (1) personal level-rural Veterans traveled longer distances for more compatible patient-provider relationships; (2) interpersonal level-they sought stable patient-provider relationships that encouraged familiarity, trust, and communication; and (3) organizational level-they emphasized shared identities and expertise that fostered a sense of belonging with their provider. Participants also described how impersonal interactions, status differences, and staff turnover impacted their choice of provider and were disruptive to patient-provider relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Rural Veterans' interview responses suggest exploring innovative ways to measure socioecological dimensions (i.e., personal, interpersonal, and organizational) of access-related decisions and patient-provider relationships to better understand health care barriers and needs. Such measures align with the VA's Whole Health approach that emphasizes person-centered care and the value of social relationships to Veterans' health.

Attitudes toward bone health among rural-dwelling veterans identified as at risk of fracture: a qualitative analysis.

Although much is known about system-level barriers to prevention and treatment of bone health problems, little is known about patient-level barriers. The objective of this study was to identify factors limiting engagement in bone health care from the perspective of rural-dwelling patients with known untreated risk. Over 6 months, 39 patients completed a qualitative interview. Interview questions focused on the patient's experience of care, their decision to not accept care, as well as their knowledge of osteoporosis and the impact it has had on their lives. Participants were well-informed and could adequately describe osteoporosis and its deleterious effects, and their decision making around accepting or declining a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan and treatment was both cautious and intentional. Decisions about how to engage in treatment were tempered by expectations for quality of life. Our findings suggest that people hold beliefs about bone health treatment that we can build on. Work to improve care of this population needs to recognize that bone health providers are not adding a behavior of medication taking to patients, they are changing a behavior or belief. Published 2021. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Factors affecting primary care implementation for older veterans with multimorbidity in Veterans Health Administration (VA).

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors affecting implementation of Geriatric Patient-Aligned Care Teams (GeriPACTs), a patient-centered medical home model for older adults with complex care needs including multiple chronic conditions (MCC), designed to provide them with comprehensive, managed, and coordinated primary care. DATA SOURCES: Qualitative data were collected from key informants at eight Veterans Health Administration Medical Centers geographically spread across the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we collected prospective primary data through semi-structured interviews with GeriPACT team members (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers, pharmacists), leaders (e.g., executive leaders, middle managers), and other staff referring to the program. DATA COLLECTION: We conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews with 134 key informants. Interviews were recorded with permission and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded in Nvivo 11. We used directed content analysis to identify key factors affecting GeriPACT implementation across sites. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Five key factors affected GeriPACT implementation-five CFIR constructs within two CFIR domains. Within the intervention characteristics domain, two constructs emerged, namely, (1) the structure of the GeriPACT model and (2) design, quality, and packaging. Within the inner setting domain, we identified three constructs, namely, (1) available resources (e.g., staffing and space, and infrastructure and information technology), (2) leadership support and engagement, and (3) networks and communications including teamwork, communication, and coordination. CONCLUSIONS: Older veterans with MCC have complex primary care needs requiring high levels of care management and coordination. Knowing what key factors affect GeriPACT implementation is critical. Study findings also contribute to the growing implementation science literature on applying CFIR to evaluate factors that affect program implementation, especially to aging research. Further studies on MCC-focused specialty primary care will help facilitate patient-centered care provision for older adults' complex health needs while also leveraging synergistic work across factors affecting implementation.

Delivering fracture prevention services to rural US veterans through telemedicine: a process evaluation.

An informatics-driven population bone health clinic was implemented to identify, screen, and treat rural US Veterans at risk for osteoporosis. We report the results of our implementation process evaluation which demonstrated BHT to be a feasible telehealth model for delivering preventative osteoporosis services in this setting. PURPOSE: An established and growing quality gap in osteoporosis evaluation and treatment of at-risk patients has yet to be met with corresponding clinical care models addressing osteoporosis primary prevention. The rural bone health tea m (BHT) was implemented to identify, screen, and treat rural Veterans lacking evidence of bone health care and we conducted a process evaluation to understand BHT implementation feasibility. METHODS: For this evaluation, we defined the primary outcome as the number of Veterans evaluated with DXA and a secondary outcome as the number of Veterans who initiated prescription therapy to reduce fracture risk. Outcomes were measured over a 15-month period and analyzed descriptively. Qualitative data to understand successful implementation were collected concurrently by conducting interviews with clinical personnel interacting with BHT and BHT staff and observations of BHT implementation processes at three site visits using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. RESULTS: Of 4500 at-risk, rural Veterans offered osteoporosis screening, 1081 (24%) completed screening, and of these, 37% had normal bone density, 48% osteopenia, and 15% osteoporosis. Among Veterans with pharmacotherapy indications, 90% initiated therapy. Qualitative analyses identified barriers of rural geography, rural population characteristics, and the infrastructural resource requirement. Data infrastructure, evidence base for care delivery, stakeholder buy-in, formal and informal facilitator engagement, and focus on teamwork were identified as facilitators of implementation success. CONCLUSION: The BHT is a feasible population telehealth model for delivering preventative osteoporosis care to rural Veterans.

Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) Performance in Urban and Rural VHA Primary Care Clinics: A Mixed Methods Study.

PURPOSE: To assess differences in Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) performance between rural and urban primary care clinics within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods design was conducted using VHA administrative data to assess performance of a national sample of 891 VHA primary care clinics. Generalized Estimating Equations with repeated measures were used to estimate associations between rurality and process-oriented endpoints including: chronic disease management through telehealth; use of telephone visits, group visits or secured messaging; same-day access; continuity with primary care provider; and postdischarge follow-up. Qualitative data collected during on-site visits with 5 clinics were used to provide insights into PACT processes from the perspectives of staff in rural and urban clinics. FINDINGS: After adjusting for patient- and practice-level characteristics, clinics located in large rural or small/isolated rural areas demonstrated difficulty enhancing access through use of telephone visits, group visits, or secured messaging and completing postdischarge follow-up calls, compared to urban clinics. Qualitative analysis indicated that staff from both rural and urban clinics reported similar barriers implementing these PACT processes. Both patient and staff behaviors and preferences impact implementation of these processes. Distance to care and access to high-speed Internet were also reported as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to the understanding of PACT performance in rural settings by highlighting ways contextual and behavioral factors relate to performance. Increasing implementation of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) models, such as PACT, will require additional attention to the complex relationships between the practice and surrounding context.

Using the PACT Resources Framework to Understand the Needs of Geriatric Primary Care Teams.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the perceived organizational resources required by healthcare workers to deliver geriatric primary care in a geriatric patient aligned care team (GeriPACT). DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study using deductive analyses of qualitative interviews conducted with GeriPACT team members. SETTING: GeriPACTs practicing at eight geographically dispersed Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems. PARTICIPANTS: GeriPACT clinicians, nurses, clerical associates, clinical pharmacists, and social workers (n = 67). MEASUREMENTS: Semistructured qualitative interviews conducted in person, transcribed, and then analyzed using the PACT Resources Framework. RESULTS: Using the PACT Resources Framework, we identified facility-, clinic-, and team-level resources critical for GeriPACT implementation. Resources within each level reflect how the needs of older adults with complex comorbidity intersect with general population primary care medical home practice. GeriPACT implementation is facilitated by attention to patient characteristics such as cognitive impairment, ambulatory limitations, or social support services in staffing and resourcing teams. CONCLUSION: Models of geriatric primary care such as GeriPACT must be implemented with an eye toward the most effective use of our most limited resource-trained geriatricians. In contrast to much of the literature on medical home teams serving a general adult population, interviews with GeriPACT members emphasize how patient needs inform all aspects of practice design including universal accessibility, near real-time response to patient needs, and ongoing interdisciplinary care coordination. Examination of GeriPACT implementation resources through the lens of traditional primary care teams illustrates the importance of tailoring primary care design to the needs of older adults with complex comorbidity.