Factors affecting the implementation of employee whole health in the veterans health administration: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition of the need to focus on the health and well-being of healthcare employees given high rates of burnout and turnover. Employee wellness programs are effective at addressing these issues; however, participation in these programs is often a challenge and requires large scale organizational transformation. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has begun to roll out their own employee wellness program-Employee Whole Health (EWH)-focused on the holistic needs of all employees. This evaluation's goal was to use the Lean Enterprise Transformation (LET) model for organizational transformation to identify key factors-facilitators and barriers-affecting the implementation of VA EWH. METHODS: This cross-sectional qualitative evaluation based on the action research model reflects on the organizational implementation of EWH. Semi-structured 60-minute phone interviews were conducted in February-April 2021 with 27 key informants (e.g., EWH coordinator, wellness/occupational health staff) knowledgeable about EWH implementation across 10 VA medical centers. Operational partner provided a list of potential participants, eligible because of their involvement in EWH implementation at their site. The interview guide was informed by the LET model. Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. Constant comparative review with a combination of a priori coding based on the model and emergent thematic analysis was used to identify themes from transcripts. Matrix analysis and rapid turnaround qualitative methods were used to identify cross-site factors to EWH implementation. RESULTS: Eight common factors in the conceptual model were found to facilitate and/or hinder EWH implementation efforts: [1] EWH initiatives, [2] multilevel leadership support, [3] alignment, [4] integration, [5] employee engagement, [6] communication, [7] staffing, and [8] culture. An emergent factor was [9] the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on EWH implementation. CONCLUSIONS: As VA expands its EWH cultural transformation nationwide, evaluation findings can (a) enable existing programs to address known implementation barriers, and (b) inform new sites to capitalize on known facilitators, anticipate and address barriers, and leverage evaluation recommendations through concerted implementation at the organization, process, and employee levels to jump-start their EWH program implementation.

A Multi-site Case Study of Care Coordination Between Primary Care and Specialty Care.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination is critical for patients with multiple chronic conditions, but fragmentation of care persists. Providers' perspectives of facilitators and barriers to coordination are needed to improve care. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand providers' perspectives on care coordination for patients having multiple chronic diseases served by multiple providers. RESEARCH DESIGN: Based upon our earlier survey of patients with multiple chronic conditions, we selected 8 medical centers having high and low coordination. We interviewed providers to identify facilitators and barriers to coordination and compare them between patient-rated high sites and low sites and between primary care (PC)-mental health (MH) and PC-medical/surgical specialty care. SUBJECTS: Physicians, nurses and other clinicians in PC, cardiology, and MH (N=102) in 8 Veterans Affairs medical centers. RESULTS: We identified warm handoffs, professional relationships, and physical proximity as facilitators, and service agreements, reporting relationships and staffing as barriers. PC-MH coordination was reported as better than PC-medical/surgical specialty coordination. Facilitators were more prevalent and barriers less prevalent in sites rated high by patients than sites rated low, and between PC-MH than between PC-specialty care. DISCUSSION: We noted that professional relationships were highly related to coordination and both affected other facilitators and barriers and were affected by them. We suggested actions to improve relationships directly, and to address other facilitators and barriers that affect relationships and coordination. Among these is the use of the Primary Care Mental Health Integration model.

Medicaid Expansion and Change in Federally Qualified Health Center Accessibility From 2008 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act expanded health coverage for low-income residents through Medicaid expansion and increased funding for Health Center Program New Access Points from 2009 to 2015, improving federally qualified health center (FQHC) accessibility. The extent to which these provisions progressed synergistically as intended when states could opt out of Medicaid expansion is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare change in FQHC accessibility among census tracts in Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states. RESEARCH DESIGN: Tract-level FQHC accessibility scores for 2008 and 2016 were estimated applying the 2-step floating catchment area method to American Community Survey and Health Resources and Services Administration data. Multivariable linear regression compared changes in FQHC accessibility between tracts in Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states, adjusting for sociodemographic and health system factors and accounting for state-level clustering. SUBJECTS: In total, 7058 census tracts across 10 states. RESULTS: FQHC accessibility increased comparably among tracts in Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states (coef: 0.3; 95% CI: -0.3, 0.8; P -value: 0.36). FQHC accessibility increased more in tracts with higher poverty and uninsured rates, and those with lower proportions of non-English speakers and Black or African American residents. CONCLUSION: Similar gains in FQHC accessibility across Medicaid expansion and nonexpansion states indicate improvements progressed independently from Medicaid expansion, rather than synergistically as expected. Accessibility increases appeared consistent with HRSA's goal to improve access for individuals experiencing economic barriers to health care but not for those experiencing cultural or language barriers to health care.

Understanding barriers to diagnosis in a rare, genetic disease: Delays and errors in diagnosing schwannomatosis.

Diagnosis of rare, genetic diseases is challenging, but conceptual frameworks of the diagnostic process can guide quality improvement initiatives. Using the National Academy of Medicine diagnostic framework, we assessed the extent of, and reasons for diagnostic delays and diagnostic errors in schwannomatosis, a neurogenetic syndrome characterized by nerve sheath tumors and chronic pain. We reviewed the medical records of 97 people with confirmed or probable schwannomatosis seen in two US tertiary care clinics. Time-to-event analysis revealed a median time from first symptom to diagnosis of 16.7 years (95% CI, 7.5-26.0 years) and median time from first medical consultation to diagnosis of 9.8 years (95% CI, 3.5-16.2 years). Factors associated with longer times to diagnosis included initial signs/symptoms that were intermittent, non-specific, or occurred at younger ages (p < 0.05). Thirty-six percent of patients were misdiagnosed; misdiagnoses were of underlying genetic condition (18.6%), pain etiology (16.5%), and nerve sheath tumor presence/pathology (11.3%) (non-mutually exclusive categories). One-fifth (19.6%) of patients had a clear missed opportunity for genetics workup that could have led to an earlier schwannomatosis diagnosis. These results suggest that interventions in clinician education, genetic testing availability, expert review of pathology findings, and automatic triggers for genetics referrals may improve diagnosis of schwannomatosis.

Facilitators and barriers to the Lean Enterprise Transformation program at the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration piloted a nationwide Lean Enterprise Transformation program to optimize delivery of services to patients for high value care. PURPOSE: Barriers and facilitators to Lean implementation were evaluated. METHODS: Guided by the Lean Enterprise Transformation evaluation model, 268 interviews were conducted, with stakeholders across 10 Veterans Health Administration medical centers. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. RESULTS: Supporting the utility of the model, facilitators and barriers to Lean implementation were found in each of the Lean Enterprise Transformation evaluation model domains: (a) impetus to transform, (b) leadership commitment to quality, (c) improvement initiatives, (d) alignment across the organization, (e) integration across internal boundaries, (f) communication, (g) capability development, (h) informed decision making, (i) patient engagement, and (j) organization culture. In addition, three emergent themes were identified: staff engagement, sufficient staffing, and use of Lean experts (senseis). CONCLUSIONS: Effective implementation required staff engagement, strategic planning, proper scoping and pacing, deliberate coaching, and accountability structures. Visible, stable leadership drove Lean when leaders articulated a clear impetus to change, aligned goals within the facility, and supported middle management. Reliable data and metrics provided support for and evidence of successful change. Strategic early planning with continual reassessment translated into focused and sustained Lean implementation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Prominent best practices identified include (a) reward participants by broadcasting Lean successes; (b) provide time and resources for participation in Lean activities; (c) avoid overscoping projects; (d) select metrics that closely align with improvement processes; and (e) invest in coaches, informal champions, process improvement staff, and senior leadership to promote staff engagement and minimize turnover.

A Mixed Methods Study of the Association of Non-Veterans Affairs Care With Veterans' and Clinicians' Experiences of Care Coordination.

BACKGROUND: Poor coordination between the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA care may negatively impact health care quality. Recent legislation is intended to increase Veterans' access to care, in part through increased use of non-VA care. However, a possible consequence may be diminished patient experiences of coordination. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine VA patients' and clinicians' experiences of coordination across VA and non-VA settings. DESIGN: Observational mixed methods using patient surveys and clinician interviews. Sampled patients were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus and either cardiovascular or mental health comorbidities. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES: Patient perspectives on coordination were elicited between April and September 2016 through a national survey supplemented with VA administrative records (N=5372). Coordination was measured with the 8-dimension Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care survey. Receipt of non-VA care was measured through patient self-report. Clinician perspectives were elicited through individual interviews (N=100) between May and October 2017. RESULTS: Veterans who received both VA and non-VA care reported significantly worse care coordination experiences than Veterans who only receive care in VA. Clinicians report limited information exchange capabilities, which, combined with bureaucratic and opaque procedures, adversely impact clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: VA is working through a shift in how Veterans receive health care by increasing access to care from non-VA providers. Study findings suggest that VA should prioritize coordination of care in addition to access. This could include requiring monitoring of patient-experienced care coordination, surveys of referring and consulting clinicians, and pilot testing and evaluation of interventions to improve coordination.

National Burnout Trends Among Physicians Working in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity of existing physician burnout studies impairs analyses of longitudinal trends, geographic distribution, and organizational factors impacting physician burnout. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is one of the largest integrated healthcare systems in the USA, offering a unique opportunity to study burnout across VA sites and time. OBJECTIVE: To characterize longitudinal burnout trends of VA physicians and assess organizational characteristics and geographic distribution associated with physician burnout. DESIGN: Longitudinal study of the VA All Employee Survey during 2013-2017. PARTICIPANTS: Self-identified physicians practicing in one of nine clinical service areas at 140 VA sites nationwide. MAIN MEASURES: We identified burnout using a validated definition adapted from the Maslach Burnout Inventory and characterized burnout trends for physicians in different clinical service areas. We used clustering analysis to categorize sites based on their burnout rates over time, and compared organizational characteristics and geographic distribution of high, medium, and low burnout categories. KEY RESULTS: We identified 40,382 physician responses from 140 VA sites. Mean burnout rates across all physicians ranged from 34.3% in 2013 to a high of 39.0% in 2014. Primary care physicians had the highest burnout. High burnout sites were more likely to be rural and non-teaching, have lower complexity (i.e., offer fewer advanced clinical services), and have fewer unique patients per site. CONCLUSIONS: VA physician burnout was lower than previously described in many non-VA studies and was relatively stable over time. These findings may be due to unique characteristics of the VA practice environment. Nonetheless, with over a third of VA physicians reporting burnout, organizational interventions are needed. Primary care physicians and those practicing at small, rural sites have higher rates of burnout and may warrant more focused attention. Our results can guide targeted interventions to promote VA physician well-being and inform efforts to address burnout in diverse clinical settings.

Organizational Coordination and Patient Experiences of Specialty Care Integration.

BACKGROUND: Delivering care to patients with complex healthcare needs benefits from coordination among healthcare providers. Greater levels of care coordination have been associated with more favorable patient experiences, cost management, and lower utilization of services. Organizational approaches consider how systems, practices, and relationships influence coordination and associated outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Examine measures of organizational coordination and their association with patient experiences of care coordination involving specialists. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys of patients and primary care providers (PCPs). PARTICIPANTS: Final sample included 3183 patients matched to 233 PCPs from the Veterans Health Administration. All patients had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus and one of four other conditions: hypertension; congestive heart failure; depression/anxiety; or severe mental illness/posttraumatic stress disorder. MAIN MEASURES: Patients completed a survey assessing perceptions of coordinated care. We examined ratings on three domains: specialist knowledge management; knowledge integration across settings and time; and knowledge fragmentation across settings and time. We created care coordination measures involving the PCP and three specialty provider types. PCPs provided ratings on relational coordination for specialists, feedback coordination, and team coordination. We aligned patient's specialty services used with corresponding PCP ratings of that specialty. KEY RESULTS: Patient ratings were significantly lower on specialist knowledge management and knowledge integration when either PCPs did not use feedback coordination (b = - .20; b = - .17, respectively) or rated feedback coordination lower (b = - .08 for both). Teamwork was significantly related to specialist knowledge management (b = .06), knowledge integration (b = .04); and knowledge fragmentation (b = - .04). Relational coordination was related to coordination between the primary care provider and (i) diabetes specialist (b = .09) and (ii) mental health provider (b = .12). CONCLUSIONS: Practices to improve provider coordination within and across primary care and specialty care services may improve patient experiences of care coordination. Improvements in these areas may improve care efficiency and effectiveness.

Survey of Patient-Centered Coordination of Care for Diabetes with Cardiovascular and Mental Health Comorbidities in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: Multiple comorbidities thought to be associated with poor coordination due to the need for shared treatment plans and active involvement of patients, among other factors. Cardiovascular and mental health comorbidities present potential coordination challenges relative to diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To determine how cardiovascular and mental health comorbidities relate to patient-centered coordinated care in the Department of Veterans Affairs. DESIGN: This observational study used a 2 × 2 factorial design to determine how cardiovascular and mental health comorbidities are associated with patient perceptions of coordinated care among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as a focal condition. PARTICIPANTS: Five thousand eight hundred six patients attributed to 262 primary care providers, from a national sample of 29 medical centers, who had completed an online survey of patient-centered coordinated care in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). MAIN MEASURES: Eight dimensions from the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care (PPIC) survey, a state-of-the-art measure of patients' perspective on coordinated and patient-centered care. KEY RESULTS: Mental health conditions were associated with significantly lower patient experiences of coordinated care. Hypotheses for disease severity were not supported, with associations in the hypothesized direction for only one dimension. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that VA may be adequately addressing coordination needs related to cardiovascular conditions, but more attention could be placed on coordination for mental health conditions. While specialized programs for more severe conditions (e.g., heart failure and serious mental illness) are important, coordination is also needed for more common, less severe conditions (e.g., hypertension, depression, anxiety). Strengthening coordination for common, less severe conditions is particularly important as VA develops alternative models (e.g., community care) that may negatively impact the degree to which care is coordinated.

Health Care Coordination Theoretical Frameworks: a Systematic Scoping Review to Increase Their Understanding and Use in Practice.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination is crucial to avoid potential risks of care fragmentation in people with complex care needs. While there are many empirical and conceptual approaches to measuring and improving care coordination, use of theory is limited by its complexity and the wide variability of available frameworks. We systematically identified and categorized existing care coordination theoretical frameworks in new ways to make the theory-to-practice link more accessible. METHODS: To identify relevant frameworks, we searched MEDLINE®, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX from 2010 to May 2018, and various other nonbibliographic sources. We summarized framework characteristics and organized them using categories from the Sustainable intEgrated chronic care modeLs for multi-morbidity: delivery, FInancing, and performancE (SELFIE) framework. Based on expert input, we then categorized available frameworks on consideration of whether they addressed contextual factors, what locus they addressed, and their design elements. We used predefined criteria for study selection and data abstraction. RESULTS: Among 4389 citations, we identified 37 widely diverse frameworks, including 16 recent frameworks unidentified by previous reviews. Few led to development of measures (39%) or initiatives (6%). We identified 5 that are most relevant to primary care. The 2018 framework by Weaver et al., describing relationships between a wide range of primary care-specific domains, may be the most useful to those investigating the effectiveness of primary care coordination approaches. We also identified 3 frameworks focused on locus and design features of implementation that could prove especially useful to those responsible for implementing care coordination. DISCUSSION: This review identified the most comprehensive frameworks and their main emphases for several general practice-relevant applications. Greater application of these frameworks in the design and evaluation of coordination approaches may increase their consistent implementation and measurement. Future research should emphasize implementation-focused frameworks that better identify factors and mechanisms through which an initiative achieves impact.

Incorporating Theory into Practice: Reconceptualizing Exemplary Care Coordination Initiatives from the US Veterans Health Delivery System.

This perspective paper seeks to lay out an efficient approach for health care providers, researchers, and other stakeholders involved in interventions aimed at improving care coordination to partner in locating and using applicable care coordination theory. The objective is to learn from relevant theory-based literature about fit between intervention options and coordination needs, thereby bringing insights from theory to enhance intervention design, implementation, and troubleshooting. To take this idea from an abstract notion to tangible application, our workgroup on models and measures from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) State of the Art (SOTA) conference on care coordination first summarizes our distillation of care coordination theoretical frameworks (models) into three common conceptual domains-context of an intervention, locus in which an intervention is applied, and specific design features of the intervention. Then we apply these three conceptual domains to four cases of care coordination interventions ("use cases") chosen to represent various scopes and stages of interventions to improve care coordination for veterans. Taken together, these examples make theory more accessible and practical by demonstrating how it can be applied to specific cases. Drawing from theory offers one method to anticipate which intervention options match a particular coordination situation.

Lean Enterprise Transformation in VA: a national evaluation framework and study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The goal of Lean Enterprise Transformation (LET) is to go beyond simply using Lean tools and instead embed Lean principles and practices in the system so that it becomes a fundamental, collective mindset of the entire enterprise. The Veterans Engineering Resource Center (VERC) launched the Veterans Affairs (VA) LET pilot program to improve quality, safety, and the Veteran's experience. A national evaluation will examine the pilot program sites' implementation processes, outcomes and impacts, and abilities to improve LET adoption and sustainment. This paper describes the evaluation design for the VA LET national evaluation and describes development of a conceptual framework to evaluate LET specifically in healthcare settings. METHODS: A targeted literature review of Lean evaluation frameworks was performed to inform the development of the conceptual framework. Key domains were identified by a multidisciplinary expert group and then validated with key stakeholders. The national evaluation design will examine LET implementation using qualitative, survey, and quantitative methods at ten VA facilities. Qualitative data include site visits, interviews, and field observation notes. Survey data include an employee engagement survey to be administered to front-line staff at all pilot sites. Quantitative data include site-level quality improvement metrics collected by the Veterans Services Support Center. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods analyses will be conducted to examine implementation of LET strategic initiatives and variations in implementation success across sites. DISCUSSION: This national evaluation of a large-scale LET implementation effort will provide insights helpful to other systems interested in embarking on a Lean journey. Additionally, we created a multi-faceted conceptual framework to capture the specific features of a Lean healthcare organization. This framework will guide this evaluation and may be useful as an assessment tool for other organizations interested in implementing Lean principles at an enterprise level.

What roles do middle managers play in implementation of innovative practices?

BACKGROUND: Middle managers play key roles in hospitals as the bridge between senior leaders and frontline staff. Yet relatively little research has focused on their role in implementing new practices. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to expand the understanding of middle managers' influence in organizations by looking at their activities through the lens of two complementary conceptual frameworks. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We analyzed qualitative data from 17 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers with high and low potential to change organizational practices. We analyzed 98 interviews with staff ranging from senior leaders to frontline staff to identify themes within an a priori framework reflecting middle manager activities. FINDINGS: Analyses yielded 14 emergent themes that allowed us to classify specific expressions of middle manager commitment to implementation of innovative practices (e.g., facilitate improvement innovation, garner staff buy-in). In comparing middle manager behaviors in high and low change potential sites, we found that most emergent themes were present in both groups. However, the activities and interactions described differed between the groups. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Middle managers can use the promising strategies identified by our analyses to guide and improve their effectiveness in implementing new practices. These strategies can also inform senior leaders striving to guide middle managers in those efforts.

What Works in Readmissions Reduction: How Hospitals Improve Performance.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals across the United States are pursuing strategies to reduce avoidable readmissions but the evidence on how best to accomplish this goal is mixed, with no specific clinical practice shown to reduce readmissions consistently. Changes to hospital organizational practices, a key component of context, also may be critical to improving performance on readmissions, but this has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand how high-performing hospitals improved risk-stratified readmission rates, and whether their changes to clinical practices and organizational practices differed from low-performing hospitals. DESIGN: This was a qualitative study of 10 hospitals in which readmission rates had decreased (n=7) or increased (n=3). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 82 hospital staff drawn from hospitals that had participated in the State Action on Avoidable Readmissions quality improvement initiative. RESULTS: High-performing hospitals were distinguished by several organizational practices that facilitated readmissions reduction, that is, collective habits of action or interpretation shared by organization members. First, high-performing hospitals reported focused efforts to improve collaboration across hospital departments. Second, they helped postacute providers improve care by sharing the hospital's clinical and quality improvement expertise and data. Third, high performers enthusiastically engaged in trial and error learning to reduce readmissions. Fourth, they emphasized that readmissions represented bad outcomes for patients, de-emphasizing the role of financial penalties. Both high-performing and low-performing hospitals had implemented most clinical practice changes commonly recommended to reduce readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight several organizational practices that hospitals may be able to use to enhance the effectiveness of their readmissions reduction efforts.

How personal and standardized coordination impact implementation of integrated care.

BACKGROUND: Integrating health care across specialized work units has the potential to lower costs and increase quality and access to mental health care. However, a key challenge for healthcare managers is how to develop policies, procedures, and practices that coordinate care across specialized units. The purpose of this study was to identify how organizational factors impacted coordination, and how to facilitate implementation of integrated care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in August 2009 with 30 clinic leaders and 35 frontline staff who were recruited from a convenience sample of 16 primary care and mental health clinics across eight medical centers. Data were drawn from a management evaluation of primary care-mental health integration in the US Department of Veterans Affairs. To protect informant confidentiality, the institutional review board did not allow quotations. RESULTS: Interviews identified antecedents of organizational coordination processes, and highlighted how these antecedents can impact the implementation of integrated care. Overall, implementing new workflow practices were reported to create conflicts with pre-existing standardized coordination processes. Personal coordination (i.e., interpersonal communication processes) between primary care leaders and staff was reported to be effective in overcoming these barriers both by working around standardized coordination barriers and modifying standardized procedures. DISCUSSION: This study identifies challenges to integrated care that might be solved with attention to personal and standardized coordination. A key finding was that personal coordination both between primary care and mental health leaders and between frontline staff is important for resolving barriers related to integrated care implementation. CONCLUSION: Integrated care interventions can involve both new standardized procedures and adjustments to existing procedures. Aligning and integrating procedures between primary care and specialty care requires personal coordination amongst leaders. Interpersonal relationships should be strengthened between staff when personal connections are important for coordinating patient care across clinical settings.

Sustainability of quality improvement following removal of pay-for-performance incentives.

BACKGROUND: Although pay-for-performance (P4P) has become a central strategy for improving quality in US healthcare, questions persist about the effectiveness of these programs. A key question is whether quality improvement that occurs as a result of P4P programs is sustainable, particularly if incentives are removed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate sustainability of performance levels following removal of performance-based incentives. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study that capitalized on a P4P program within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) that included adoption and subsequent removal of performance-based incentives for selected inpatient quality measures. The study sample comprised 128 acute care VA hospitals where performance was assessed between 2004 and 2010. INTERVENTION: VA system managers set annual performance goals in consultation with clinical leaders, and report performance scores to medical centers on a quarterly basis. These scores inform performance-based incentives for facilities and their managers. Bonuses are distributed based on the attainment of these performance goals. MEASUREMENTS: Seven quality of care measures for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and pneumonia linked to performance-based incentives. RESULTS: Significant improvements in performance were observed for six of seven quality of care measures following adoption of performance-based incentives and were maintained up to the removal of the incentive; subsequently, the observed performance levels were sustained. LIMITATIONS: This is a quasi-experimental study without a comparison group; causal conclusions are limited. CONCLUSION: The maintenance of performance levels after removal of a performance-based incentive has implications for the implementation of Medicare's value-based purchasing initiative and other P4P programs. Additional research is needed to better understand human and system-level factors that mediate sustainability of performance-based incentives.

Leadership for evidence-based practice: strategic and functional behaviors for institutionalizing EBP.

BACKGROUND: Making evidence-based practice (EBP) a reality throughout an organization is a challenging goal in healthcare services. Leadership has been recognized as a critical element in that process. However, little is known about the exact role and function of various levels of leadership in the successful institutionalization of EBP within an organization. AIMS: To uncover what leaders at different levels and in different roles actually do, and what actions they take to develop, enhance, and sustain EBP as the norm. METHODS: Qualitative data from a case study regarding institutionalization of EBP in two contrasting cases (Role Model and Beginner hospitals) were systematically analyzed. Data were obtained from multiple interviews of leaders, both formal and informal, and from staff nurse focus groups. A deductive coding schema, based on concepts of functional leadership, was developed for this in-depth analysis. RESULTS: Participants' descriptions reflected a hierarchical array of strategic, functional, and cross-cutting behaviors. Within these macrolevel "themes," 10 behavioral midlevel themes were identified; for example, Intervening and Role modeling. Each theme is distinctive, yet various themes and their subthemes were interrelated and synergistic. These behaviors and their interrelationships were conceptualized in the framework "Leadership Behaviors Supportive of EBP Institutionalization" (L-EBP). Leaders at multiple levels in the Role Model case, both formal and informal, engaged in most of these behaviors. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Supportive leadership behaviors required for organizational institutionalization of EBP reflect a complex set of interactive, multifaceted EBP-focused actions carried out by leaders from the chief nursing officer to staff nurses. A related framework such as L-EBP may provide concrete guidance needed to underpin the often-noted but abstract finding that leaders should "support" EBP.

Multidisciplinary providers' perceptions of care delivery for sleep disorders: A qualitative case study.

OBJECTIVES: Sleep disorders are wide-ranging in their causes and impacts on other physical and mental health conditions. Thus, sleep disorders could benefit from a multidisciplinary approach to assessment and treatment. An integrated care model is often recommended but is costly to implement. We sought to understand how, in the absence of an established organizational structure for integrated sleep care, providers from different clinics work together to provide care for sleep disorders. METHODS: A qualitative case study at one U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. We used a purposeful nested sampling strategy, combining maximum variation sampling and snowball sampling to recruit key staff involved in sleep care. RESULTS: We interviewed providers (N = 10) from sleep medicine, primary care, and mental health services. Providers identified the ubiquity of sleep disorders and a concomitant need for multidisciplinary care. However, they described limited opportunities for multidisciplinary interactions and consequently a negative impact on clinical care. Providers described fragmentation in two areas: among sleep specialists and between sleep specialists and other referring and managing providers. CONCLUSIONS: A range of interventions, based on setting and resources, could improve care coordination both among sleep specialists and between sleep and nonsleep providers. While integrated sleep specialist clinics could reduce care fragmentation, they may not directly impact coordination with referring providers, like primary care and general mental health, who are essential in managing chronic conditions. Future work should continue to explore improving care coordination for sleep problems to ensure patients receive high-quality, timely, patient-centered care.

Screening for mild traumatic brain injury in OEF-OIF deployed US military: an empirical assessment of VHA's experience.

BACKGROUND: VHA screens for traumatic brain injury (TBI) among patients formerly deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq, referring those who screen positive for a Comprehensive TBI Evaluation (CTBIE). METHODS: To assess the programme, rates were calculated of positive screens for potential TBI in the population of patients screened in VHA between October 2007 through March 2009. Rates were derived of TBI confirmed by comprehensive evaluations from October 2008 through July 2009. Patient characteristics were obtained from Department of Defense and VHA administrative data. RESULTS: In the study population, 21.6% screened positive for potential TBI and 54.6% of these had electronic records of a CTBIE. Of those with CTBIE records, evaluators confirmed TBI in 57.7%, yielding a best estimate that 6.8% of all those screened were confirmed to have TBI. Three quarters of all screened patients and virtually all those evaluated (whether TBI was confirmed or not) had VHA care the following year. CONCLUSIONS: VHA's TBI screening process is inclusive and has utility in referring patients with current symptoms to appropriate care. More than 90% of those evaluated received further VHA care and confirmatory evaluations were associated with significantly higher average utilization. Generalizability is limited to those who seek VHA healthcare.