Impact of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement on Tailoring VA's Patient-Centered Medical Home Model to Women Veterans' Needs.

BACKGROUND: Women Veterans' numerical minority, high rates of military sexual trauma, and gender-specific healthcare needs have complicated implementation of comprehensive primary care (PC) under VA's patient-centered medical home model, Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT). OBJECTIVE: We deployed an evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) approach to tailor PACT to meet women Veterans' needs and studied its effects on women's health (WH) care readiness, team-based care, and burnout. DESIGN: We evaluated EBQI effectiveness in a cluster randomized trial with unbalanced random allocation of 12 VAMCs (8 EBQI vs. 4 control). Clinicians/staff completed web-based surveys at baseline (2014) and 24 months (2016). We adjusted for individual-level covariates (e.g., years at VA) and weighted for non-response in difference-in-difference analyses for readiness and team-based care overall and by teamlet type (mixed-gender PC-PACTs vs. women-only WH-PACTs), as well as post-only burnout comparisons. PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed all clinicians/staff in general PC and WH clinics. INTERVENTION: EBQI involved structured engagement of multilevel, multidisciplinary stakeholders at network, VAMC, and clinic levels toward network-specific QI roadmaps. The research team provided QI training, formative feedback, and external practice facilitation, and support for cross-site collaboration calls to VAMC-level QI teams, which developed roadmap-linked projects adapted to local contexts. MAIN MEASURES: WH care readiness (confidence providing WH care, self-efficacy implementing PACT for women, barriers to providing care for women, gender sensitivity); team-based care (change-readiness, communication, decision-making, PACT-related QI, functioning); burnout. KEY RESULTS: Overall, EBQI had mixed effects which varied substantively by type of PACT. In PC-PACTs, EBQI increased self-efficacy implementing PACT for women and gender sensitivity, even as it lowered confidence. In contrast, in WH-PACTs, EBQI improved change-readiness, team-based communication, and functioning, and was associated with lower burnout. CONCLUSIONS: EBQI effectiveness varied, with WH-PACTs experiencing broader benefits and PC-PACTs improving basic WH care readiness. Lower confidence delivering WH care by PC-PACT members warrants further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The data in this paper represent results from a cluster randomized controlled trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02039856).

Understanding How Contingency Staffing Programs Can Support Mental Health Services in the Veterans Health Administration.

Introduction: Beginning in 2019, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prioritized improving access to care nationally to deliver virtual care and implemented 18 regionally based Clinical Resource Hubs (CRHs) to meet this priority. This observational study describes the quantity and types of care delivered by CRH Mental Health teams, and the professions of those hired to deliver it. Methods: A retrospective cohort study, based on national VA CRH mental health care utilization data and CRH staffing data for CRH's first 3 years, was conducted. Results: CRH Mental Health teams primarily used Telemental Health (TMH) to provide care (98.1% of all CRH MH encounters). The most common disorders treated included depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety disorders. The amount of care delivered overtime steadily increased as did the racial and ethnic diversity of Veterans served. Psychologists accounted for the largest share of CRH staffing, followed by psychiatrists. Conclusions: CRH TMH delivered from a regional hub appears to be a feasible and acceptable visit modality, based on the continuously increasing CRH TMH visit rates. Our results showed that CRH TMH was predominantly used to address common mental health diagnoses, rather than serious mental illnesses. Traditionally marginalized patient populations increased over the 3-year window, suggesting that CRH TMH resources were accessible to many of these patients. Future research should assess barriers and facilitators for accessing CRH TMH, especially for difficult-to-service patient populations, and should consider whether similar results to ours occur when regional TMH is delivered to non-VA patient populations.

Associations Between Primary Care Providers and Staff-Reported Access Management Challenges and Patient Perceptions of Access.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Optimizing patients' access to primary care is critically important but challenging. In a national survey, we asked primary care providers and staff to rate specific care processes as access management challenges and assessed whether clinics with more of these challenges had worse access outcomes. METHODS: Study design: Cross sectional. National Primary Care Personnel Survey (NPCPS) (2018) participants included 6210 primary care providers (PCPs) and staff in 813 clinics (19% response rate) and 158,645 of their patients. We linked PCP and staff ratings of access management challenges to veterans' perceived access from 2018-2019 Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients-Patient Centered Medical Home (SHEP-PCMH) surveys (35.6% response rate). MAIN MEASURES: The NPCPS queried PCPs and staff about access management challenges. The mean overall access challenge score was 28.6, SD 6.0. The SHEP-PCMH access composite asked how often veterans reported always obtaining urgent appointments same/next day; routine appointments when desired and having medical questions answered during office hours. ANALYTIC APPROACH: We aggregated PCP and staff responses to clinic level, and use multi-level, multivariate logistic regressions to assess associations between clinic-level access management challenges and patient perceptions of access. We controlled for veteran-, facility-, and area-level characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Veterans at clinics with more access management challenges (> 75th percentile) had a lower likelihood of reporting always receiving timely urgent care appointments (AOR: .86, 95% CI: .78-.95); always receiving routine appointments (AOR: .74, 95% CI: .67-.82); and always reporting same- or next-day answers to telephone questions (AOR: .79, 95% CI: .70-.90) compared to veterans receiving care at clinics with fewer (< 25th percentile) challenges. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Findings show a strong relationship between higher levels of access management challenges and worse patient perceptions of access. Addressing access management challenges, particularly those associated with call center communication, may be an actionable path for improved patient experience.

Learning from national implementation of the Veterans Affairs Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program for improving access to care: protocol for a six year evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program aims to improve patient access to care by implementing time-limited, regionally based primary or mental health staffing support to cover local staffing vacancies. VA's Office of Primary Care (OPC) designed CRH to support more than 1000 geographically disparate VA outpatient sites, many of which are in rural areas, by providing virtual contingency clinical staffing for sites experiencing primary care and mental health staffing deficits. The subsequently funded CRH evaluation, carried out by the VA Primary Care Analytics Team (PCAT), partnered with CRH program leaders and evaluation stakeholders to develop a protocol for a six-year CRH evaluation. The objectives for developing the CRH evaluation protocol were to prospectively: 1) identify the outcomes CRH aimed to achieve, and the key program elements designed to achieve them; 2) specify evaluation designs and data collection approaches for assessing CRH progress and success; and 3) guide the activities of five geographically dispersed evaluation teams. METHODS: The protocol documents a multi-method CRH program evaluation design with qualitative and quantitative elements. The evaluation's overall goal is to assess CRH's return on investment to the VA and Veterans at six years through synthesis of findings on program effectiveness. The evaluation includes both observational and quasi-experimental elements reflecting impacts at the national, regional, outpatient site, and patient levels. The protocol is based on program evaluation theory, implementation science frameworks, literature on contingency staffing, and iterative review and revision by both research and clinical operations partners. DISCUSSION: Health systems increasingly seek to use data to guide management and decision-making for newly implemented clinical programs and policies. Approaches for planning evaluations to accomplish this goal, however, are not well-established. By publishing the protocol, we aim to increase the validity and usefulness of subsequent evaluation findings. We also aim to provide an example of a program evaluation protocol developed within a learning health systems partnership.

Association of Integrated Mental Health Services with Physical Health Quality Among VA Primary Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care for comorbid depression and chronic medical disease improved physical and mental health outcomes in randomized controlled trials. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) across all primary care clinics nationally to increase access to mental/behavioral health treatment, alongside physical health management. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether widespread, pragmatic PC-MHI implementation was associated with improved care quality for chronic medical diseases. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study included 828,050 primary care patients with at least one quality metric among 396 VA clinics providing PC-MHI services between October 2013 and September 2016. MAIN MEASURE(S): For outcome measures, chart abstractors rated whether diabetes and cardiovascular quality metrics were met for patients at each clinic as part of VA's established quality reporting program. The explanatory variable was the proportion of primary care patients seen by integrated mental health specialists in each clinic annually. Multilevel logistic regression models examined associations between clinic PC-MHI proportion and patient-level quality metrics, adjusting for regional, patient, and time-level effects and clinic and patient characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Median proportion of patients seen in PC-MHI per clinic was 6.4% (IQR=4.7-8.7%). Nineteen percent of patients with diabetes had poor glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c >9%). Five percent had severely elevated blood pressure (>160/100 mmHg). Each two-fold increase in clinic PC-MHI proportion was associated with 2% lower adjusted odds of poor glycemic control (95% CI=0.96-0.99; p=0.046) in diabetes. While there was no association with quality for patients diagnosed with hypertension, patients without diagnosed hypertension had 5% (CI=0.92-0.99; p=0.046) lower adjusted odds of having elevated blood pressures. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Primary care clinics where integrated mental health care reached a greater proportion of patients achieved modest albeit statistically significant gains in key chronic care quality metrics, providing optimism about the expected effects of large-scale PC-MHI implementation on physical health.

The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching Project: Cluster-Randomized Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Patient Experience of Care Coordination.

BACKGROUND: Given persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination. OBJECTIVE: The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics. DESIGN: Multi-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs. INTERVENTIONS: We used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: We quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects. KEY RESULTS: N = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone. CONCLUSION: Although coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.

Combining Improvement and Implementation Sciences and Practices for the Post COVID-19 Era.

Health services made many changes quickly in response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Many more are being made. Some changes were already evaluated, and there are rigorous research methods and frameworks for evaluating their local implementation and effectiveness. But how useful are these methods for evaluating changes where evidence of effectiveness is uncertain, or which need adaptation in a rapidly changing situation? Has implementation science provided implementers with tools for effective implementation of changes that need to be made quickly in response to the demands of the pandemic? This perspectives article describes how parts of the research and practitioner communities can use and develop a combination of implementation and improvement to enable faster and more effective change in the future, especially where evidence of local effectiveness is limited. We draw on previous reviews about the advantages and disadvantages of combining these two domains of knowledge and practice. We describe a generic digitally assisted rapid cycle testing (DA-RCT) approach that combines elements of each in order to better describe a change, monitor outcomes, and make adjustments to the change when implemented in a dynamic environment.

Use of the Veterans' Choice Program and Attrition From Veterans Health Administration Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Concerns over timely access and waiting times for appointments in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) spurred the push towards greater privatization. In 2014, VHA increased the provision of care from community providers through the Veterans' Choice Program (Choice). OBJECTIVES: We examined the characteristics of patients and practices more likely to use Choice care and whether using Choice care affected patients' attrition from VHA primary care. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a longitudinal study of VHA primary care users in the fiscal year 2015 and their attrition 2 years later. In the multivariate analysis, we examined whether attrition from VHA primary care was related to prior use of Choice care. SUBJECTS: A total of 1.4 million nonelderly patients diagnosed with chronic conditions. MEASURES: Choice outpatient care utilization was measured in the baseline year. Attrition was measured as not receiving any VHA primary care in 2 subsequent years. RESULTS: In our cohort, 93,710 (7%) patients used some Choice outpatient care, and these patients were more likely to be female, White or Hispanic, to have more primary care utilization at baseline, and to have long driving distances to VHA care. Practices which sent more patients out for Choice care had lower mean scores for patient-centered medical home implementation and longer mean waiting times for appointments. In the adjusted analysis, the probability of attrition was significantly lower (-0.009) among patients who used Choice outpatient care (0.036) versus patients who did not (0.044) (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of community outpatient providers in the Choice program was associated with less attrition from VHA primary care.

Does Mental Health Care Integration Affect Primary Care Clinician Burnout? Results from a Longitudinal Veterans Affairs Survey.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among primary care clinicians (PCPs) is associated with negative health and productivity consequences. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) embedded mental health specialists and care managers in primary care to manage common psychiatric diseases. While challenging to implement, mental health integration is a team-based care model thought to improve clinician well-being. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationships between PCP-reported burnout (and secondarily, job satisfaction) and mental health integration at provider and clinic levels DESIGN: Analysis of 286 cross-sectional surveys in 2012 (n = 171) and 2013 (n = 115) PARTICIPANTS: 210 PCPs in one VA region MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were PCP-reported burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory emotional exhaustion subscale), and secondarily, job satisfaction. Two independent variables represented mental health integration: (1) PCP-specialty communication rating and (2) proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists. Using multilevel regression models, we examined PCP-reported burnout (and job satisfaction) and mental health integration, adjusting for PCP characteristics (e.g., gender), PCP ratings of team functioning (communication, knowledge/skills, satisfaction), and organizational factors. KEY RESULTS: On average, PCPs reported high burnout (29, range = 9-54) across all VA healthcare systems. In total, 46% of PCPs reported "very easy" communication with mental health; 9% of primary clinic patients had seen integrated specialists. Burnout was not significantly associated with mental health communication ratings (ß coefficient = - 0.96, standard error [SE] = 1.29, p = 0.46), nor with proportion of clinic patients who saw integrated specialists (ß = 0.02, SE = 0.11, p = 0.88). No associations were observed with job satisfaction either. Among study participants, PCPs with poor team functioning, as exhibited by low team communication ratings, reported high burnout (ß = - 1.28, SE = 0.22, p < 0.001) and low job satisfaction (ß = 0.12, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As currently implemented, primary care and mental health integration did not appear to impact PCP-reported burnout, nor job satisfaction. More research is needed to explore care model variation among clinics in order to optimize implementation to enhance PCP well-being.

Do Collaborative Care Managers and Technology Enhance Primary Care Satisfaction with Care from Embedded Mental Health Providers?

BACKGROUND: To improve mental health care access, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) in clinics nationally. Primary care clinical leader satisfaction can inform model implementation and may be facilitated by collaborative care managers and technology supporting cross-specialty collaboration. OBJECTIVE: (1) To determine primary care clinical leaders' overall satisfaction with care from embedded mental health providers for a range of conditions and (2) to examine the association between overall satisfaction and two program features (care managers, technology). DESIGN: Cross-sectional organizational survey in one VA region (Southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico), 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-nine physicians or other designated clinical leaders in each VA primary care clinic (94% response rate). MAIN MEASURES: We assessed primary care clinical leader satisfaction with embedded mental health care on four groups of conditions: target, non-target mental health, behavioral health, suicide risk management. They additionally responded about the availability of mental health care managers and the sufficiency of information technology (telemental health, e-consult, instant messaging). We examined relationships between satisfaction and the two program features using χ2 tests and multivariable regressions. KEY RESULTS: Most primary care clinical leaders were "very satisfied" with care for targeted anxiety (71%) and depression (69%), but not for other common conditions (37% alcohol misuse, 19% pain). Care manager availability was significantly associated with "very satisfied" responses for depression (p = .02) and anxiety care by embedded mental health providers (p = .02). Highly rated sufficiency of communication technology (only 19%) was associated with "very satisfied" responses to suicide risk management (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Care from embedded mental health providers for depression and anxiety was highly satisfactory, which may guide improvement among less satisfactory conditions (alcohol misuse, pain). Observed associations between overall satisfaction and collaborative care features may inform clinics on how to optimize staffing and technology based on priority conditions.

Elements of the healthy work environment associated with lower primary care nurse burnout.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relationship between primary care nurses' work environment and burnout, particularly in settings where patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) have been implemented. PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between PCMH nurses' work environment and burnout. METHODS: Multivariable analyses were performed using two waves of survey data from PCMH registered nurses (RNs; n = 170) and PCMH licensed vocational nurses (LVNs; n = 181) in 23 primary care clinics. FINDINGS: True collaboration was inversely associated with PCMH RN burnout (b = -2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.29, -0.08, p < .01). Meaningful recognition was inversely associated with PCMH LVN burnout (b = -5.1, 95% CI = -8.36, -1.82, p < .01). In models with all nurses, RN (vs. LVN) position was associated with higher levels of burnout (b = 6.2, 95% CI = 2.47, 9.84, p < .01). DISCUSSION: This study highlights the important role of the work environment in reducing PCMH nurse burnout. Strategies to foster team collaboration and meaningful recognition should be investigated to reduce PCMH nurse burnout.

High Quality of Care Persists With Shifting Depression Services From VA Specialty to Integrated Primary Care.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Offering depression collaborative care services in primary care (PC) settings can reduce use of nonintegrated mental health care resources and improve mental health care access, particularly for vulnerable PC patients. Tests of effects on depression care quality, however, are needed. We examined overall quality of depression care and tested whether increasing clinic engagement in Veterans Affairs (VA)'s Primary Care-Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) services was associated with differences in depression care quality over time. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of 80,136 Veterans seen in 26 Southern California VA PC clinics (October 1, 2008-September 30, 2013). Using multilevel regression models adjusting for year, clinic, and patient characteristics, we predicted effects of clinic PC-MHI engagement (ie, percent of PC patients receiving PC-MHI services) on 3 VA-developed longitudinal electronic population-based depression quality measures among Veterans newly diagnosed with depression (n=12,533). RESULTS: Clinic PC-MHI engagement rates were not associated with significant depression care quality differences. Across all clinics, average rates of follow-up within 84 or 180 days were, 66.4% and 74.5%, respectively. Receipt of minimally appropriate treatment was 80.5%. Treatment probabilities were significantly higher for vulnerable PC patients (homeless: 4.5%, P=0.03; serious mental illness: 15.2%, P<0.001), than for otherwise similar patients without these characteristics. CONCLUSIONS/POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Study patients treated in PC clinics with greater PC-MHI engagement received similarly high quality depression care, and even higher quality for vulnerable patients. Findings support increasing use of PC-MHI models to the extent that they confer some advantage over existing services (eg, access, patient satisfaction) other than quality of care.

Effects of Intensive Primary Care on High-Need Patient Experiences: Survey Findings from a Veterans Affairs Randomized Quality Improvement Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home. OBJECTIVE: Determine how augmenting the VA's medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care. INTERVENTION: PIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACT patients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACT patients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Augmenting VA's patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients' experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures.

Rates and Impact of Adherence to Recommended Care for Unhealthy Alcohol Use.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is a major worldwide health problem. Yet few studies have assessed provider adherence to the alcohol-related care recommended in clinical practice guidelines, nor links between adherence to recommended care and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe quality of care for unhealthy alcohol use and its impacts on drinking behavior RESEARCH DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study of quality of alcohol care for the population of patients screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use in a large Veterans Affairs health system. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 719 patients who screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use at one of 11 primary care practices and who completed baseline and 6-month telephone interviews. MAIN MEASURES: Using administrative encounter and medical record data, we assessed three composite and 21 individual process-based measures of care delivered across primary and specialty care settings. We assessed self-reported daily alcohol use using telephone interviews at baseline and 6-month follow-up. KEY RESULTS: The median proportion of patients who received recommended care across measures was 32.8% (range < 1% for initiating pharmacotherapy to 93% for depression screening). There was negligible change in drinking for the study population between baseline and 6 months. In covariate-adjusted analyses, no composites were significantly associated with changes in heavy drinking days or drinks per week, and just one of nine individual measures tested was significantly associated. In a subsample of patients drinking above recommended weekly limits prior to screening, two of nine individual measures were significantly associated. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows wide variability in receipt of recommended care for unhealthy alcohol use. Receipt of recommended interventions for reducing drinking was frequently not associated with decreased drinking. Results suggest deficits in provision of comprehensive alcohol care and in understanding how to improve population-based drinking outcomes.

Impact of Primary Care Intensive Management on High-Risk Veterans' Costs and Utilization: A Randomized Quality Improvement Trial.

Background: Primary care models that offer comprehensive, accessible care to all patients may provide insufficient resources to meet the needs of patients with complex conditions who have the greatest risk for hospitalization. Objective: To assess whether augmenting usual primary care with team-based intensive management lowers utilization and costs for high-risk patients. Design: Randomized quality improvement trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03100526). Setting: 5 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Patients: Primary care patients at high risk for hospitalization who had a recent acute care episode. Intervention: Locally tailored intensive management programs providing care coordination, goals assessment, health coaching, medication reconciliation, and home visits through an interdisciplinary team, including a physician or nurse practitioner, a nurse, and psychosocial experts. Measurements: Utilization and costs (including intensive management program expenses) 12 months before and after randomization. Results: 2210 patients were randomly assigned, 1105 to intensive management and 1105 to usual care. Patients had a mean age of 63 years and an average of 7 chronic conditions; 90% were men. Of the patients assigned to intensive management, 487 (44%) received intensive outpatient care (that is, ≥3 encounters in person or by telephone) and 204 (18%) received limited intervention. From the pre- to postrandomization periods, mean inpatient costs decreased more for the intensive management than the usual care group (-$2164 [95% CI, -$7916 to $3587]). Outpatient costs increased more for the intensive management than the usual care group ($2636 [CI, $524 to $4748]), driven by greater use of primary care, home care, telephone care, and telehealth. Mean total costs were similar in the 2 groups before and after randomization. Limitations: Sites took up to several months to contact eligible patients, limiting the time between treatment and outcome assessment. Only VA costs were assessed. Conclusion: High-risk patients with access to an intensive management program received more outpatient care with no increase in total costs. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Health Administration Primary Care Services.

What makes team communication effective: a qualitative analysis of interprofessional primary care team members' perspectives.

Although numerous scholars have emphasized the need for effective communication between members of interprofessional teams, few studies provide a clear understanding of what constitutes effective team communication in primary care settings, specifically where patient-centered medical home (PCMH) teams have been implemented. This paper describes the elements of effective communication as perceived by members of interprofessional PCMH primary care teams, and identifies elements of effective communication that have persisted over time. Using transcribed text from 75 semi-structured interviews, we applied the grounded theory method of constant comparison to categorize emergent themes relating to elements of team communication. Interprofessional PCMH team members described the elements of effective communication as: 1) shared knowledge, 2) situation/goal awareness, 3) problem-solving, 4) mutual respect; and communication that is 5) transparent, 6) timely, 7) frequent, 8) consistent, and 9) parsimonious. Parsimony is an emergent theme that may be especially relevant for interprofessional PCMH teams challenged with structured clinic schedules. Future work could focus on understanding how to teach and sustain effective parsimonious communication. Comprehensive quality improvement efforts incorporating a variety of strategies, including team communication training, information and communication technologies, and standardized communication tools may facilitate communication of pertinent patient information in a brief and concise manner.

Communication Among Team Members Within the Patient-centered Medical Home and Patient Satisfaction With Providers: The Mediating Role of Patient-Provider Communication.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) uses team-based care to improve patient outcomes, including satisfaction. The quality of patients' communication with their primary care providers (PCPs) is a key determinant of patient satisfaction. A shift to team-based care could disrupt the therapeutic relationship between patients and their PCPs and reduce patient satisfaction if communication and coordination among primary care team members is poor. Little is known about the relationship between intrateam communication within a PCMH and patient satisfaction with PCPs, and whether patient-provider communication might mediate this relationship. OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between intrateam communication in a PCMH and patients' satisfaction with assigned PCPs, and whether patient-provider communication mediates this relationship. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys of Veterans Health Administration PCPs (2011-2012, n=149) matched with their assigned patients' surveys (n=3329). Mediation analyses using a nested data structure, controlling for patient and provider characteristics. MEASURES: Patient satisfaction with PCPs, patient-reported patient-provider communication, and PCP-reported intrateam communication within the PCMH. RESULTS: Intrateam communication and patient-provider communication were independently associated with patients' satisfaction with their PCPs. Patient-provider communication mediated 56% of the association between intrateam communication and patient satisfaction. Better intrateam communication combined with better patient-provider communication predicted high satisfaction (81%), compared with poor intrateam communication and poor patient-provider communication (22%). CONCLUSIONS: PCMH environments with better communication among team members are likely to experience better patient-provider communication and high patient satisfaction. PCMH practices with low ratings of patient satisfaction may need to look beyond individual PCPs to communication within and across teams.