Evaluating the Impacts of Patient Engagement on Health Services Research Teams: Lessons from the Veteran Consulting Network.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing commitment to patient engagement in research, evaluation of the impact of these efforts on research processes, products, and teams is limited. OBJECTIVE: To explore the impacts of engaging patients as consultants to research studies by examining the experiences, impacts, and lessons learned from a program facilitating patient engagement at a Veterans Health Administration research center. DESIGN: We developed a logic model to articulate the activities being implemented to support patient engagement and their anticipated outcomes. Then, we conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with participants in the local Veteran Consulting Network to qualitatively explore these outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve researchers and eleven Veteran patients with experience working on at least one grant or funded study. APPROACH: Interview transcripts were inductively coded using a consensus-based approach. Findings were synthesized using framework analysis and mapped back onto our logic model of expected patient engagement impacts. KEY RESULTS: Patient engagement improved the perceived quality and relevance of research studies as patient consultants challenged researchers' assumptions about patient populations and clinical contexts and gave feedback that helped improve the feasibility of proposed grants, readability of study materials, comprehensiveness of study assessments, and cultural sensitivity and relevance of interventions. Patient engagement also had personal benefits to researchers and patients. Researchers reported improved communication skills and higher job satisfaction. Patients reported a sense of purpose and satisfaction from their work with greater awareness of and appreciation for research. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging patients in research can have multiple benefits to the people and work involved. Our evaluation process can serve as a template for other organizations to plan for and assess the impact of their own patient engagement programs. Creating logic models and updating them based on feedback from program users make engagement goals explicit, help verify expected mechanisms to achieve impact, and facilitate organizational learning.

'It Makes You Sit Back and Think Where You Wanna Go': Veteran experiences in virtual whole health peer-led groups.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is building a Whole Health system of care that aspires to empower and equip each Veteran to pursue a personally meaningful vision of health and well-being. As part of this effort, VHA has developed Taking Charge of My Life and Health (TCMLH), a peer-led, group-based programme that seeks to support Veterans in setting and pursuing health and well-being goals. Prior research showed TCMLH groups to positively impact Veteran outcomes; yet, little is known about Veterans' own experiences and perspectives. METHODS: We completed semi-structured telephone interviews with 15 Veterans across 8 sites who had participated in TCMLH groups offered by the VHA in the virtual format between Summer 2020 and Fall 2021. Inductive thematic analysis was applied to interview transcripts to generate themes. FINDINGS: We identified five themes regarding Veterans' experiences with TCMLH: (1) navigating the virtual format; (2) internalizing the value of health engagement; (3) making healthy lifestyle changes; (4) forging social connections; and (5) taking on a more active role in healthcare. CONCLUSION: Veterans perceived virtual TCMLH groups as meaningful and beneficial, yet also highlighted several challenges. Their perspectives speak to the need to supplement time-limited programmes like TCMLH with ongoing, community-based support. Virtual group-based well-being programmes are a promising innovation. Other healthcare systems may draw on VHA's experience while tailoring format and content to the needs of their patient populations. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Veterans were involved as evaluation participants. A Veteran consultant, who is a coauthor on this paper, was engaged through the conceptualization of the evaluation, development of data collection materials (interview guide) and writing.

How Should We Organize Care for Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Comorbidities? A Multisite Qualitative Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Care in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: With human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) now managed as a chronic disease, health care has had to change and expand to include management of other critical comorbidities. We sought to understand how variation in the organization, structure and processes of HIV and comorbidity care, based on patient-centered medical home (PCMH) principles, was related to care quality for Veterans with HIV. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative site visits were conducted at a purposive sample of 8 Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, varying in care quality and outcomes for HIV and common comorbidities. Site visits entailed conduct of patient interviews (n=60); HIV care team interviews (n=60); direct observation of clinic processes and team interactions (n=22); and direct observations of patient-provider clinical encounters (n=45). Data were analyzed using a priori and emergent codes, construction of site syntheses and comparing sites with varying levels of quality. RESULTS: Sites highest and lowest in both HIV and comorbidity care quality demonstrated clear differences in provision of PCMH-principled care. The highest site provided greater team-based, comprehensive, patient-centered, and data-driven care and engaged in continuous improvement. Sites with higher HIV care quality attended more to psychosocial needs. Sites that had consistent processes for comorbidity care, whether in HIV or primary care clinics, had higher quality of comorbidity care. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of high-quality HIV care and high-quality co-morbidity care require different care structures and processes. Provision of both requires a focus on providing care aligned with PCMH principles, integrating psychosocial needs into care, and establishing explicit consistent approaches to comorbidity management.

Lessons Learned From VHA's Rapid Implementation of Virtual Whole Health Peer-Led Groups During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Staff Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Committed to implementing a person-centered, holistic (Whole Health) system of care, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a peer-led, group-based, multi-session "Taking Charge of My Life and Health" (TCMLH) program wherein Veterans reflect on values, set health and well-being-related goals, and provide mutual support. Prior work has demonstrated the positive impact of these groups. After face-to-face TCMLH groups were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, VHA facilities rapidly implemented virtual (video-based) TCMLH groups. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand staff perspectives on the feasibility, challenges, and advantages of conducting TCMLH groups virtually. METHODS: We completed semi-structured telephone interviews with 35 staff members involved in the implementation of virtual TCMLH groups across 12 VHA facilities and conducted rapid qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts. RESULTS: Holding TCMLH groups virtually was viewed as feasible. Factors that promoted the implementation included use of standardized technology platforms amenable to delivery of group-based curriculum, availability of technical support, and adjustments in facilitator delivery style. The key drawbacks of the virtual format included difficulty maintaining engagement and barriers to relationship-building among participants. The perceived advantages of the virtual format included the positive influence of being in the home environment on Veterans' reflection, motivation, and self-disclosure, the greater convenience and accessibility of the virtual format, and the virtual group's role as an antidote to isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Faced with the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, VHA pivoted by rapidly implementing virtual TCMLH groups. Staff members involved in implementation noted that delivering TCMLH virtually was feasible and highlighted both challenges and advantages of the virtual format. A virtual group-based program in which participants set and pursue personally meaningful goals related to health and well-being in a supportive environment of their peers is a promising innovation that can be replicated in other health systems.

Leaning Into Whole Health: Sustaining System Transformation While Supporting Patients and Employees During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The US Veterans Health Administration (VA) is transforming its healthcare system to create a Whole Health System (WHS) of care. Akin to such reorganization efforts as creating patient-centered medical homes and primary care behavioral health integration, the WHS goes beyond by transforming the entire system to one that takes a proactive approach to support patient and employee health and wellness. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic disrupted the VA's healthcare system and added stress for staff and patients, creating an exogenous shock for this transformation towards a WHS. OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship between VA's WHS transformation and the pandemic to understand if transformation was sustained during crisis and contributed to VA's response. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted as part of a multi-year study of WHS transformation. A single multi-person interview was conducted with 61 WHS leaders at 18 VA Medical Centers, examining WH transformation and use during the pandemic. Data were analyzed using rapid directed content analysis. RESULTS: While the pandemic initially slowed transformation efforts, sites intentionally embraced a WH approach to support patients and employees during this crisis. Efforts included conducting patient wellness calls, and, for patients and employees, promoting complementary and integrative health therapies, self-care, and WH concepts to combat stress and support wellbeing. A surge in virtual technology use facilitated innovative delivery of complementary and integrative therapies and promoted continued use of WH activities. CONCLUSION: The pandemic called attention to the need for healthcare systems to address the wellbeing of both patients and providers to sustain high quality care delivery. At a time of crisis, VA sites sustained WH transformation efforts, recognizing WH as one strategy to support patients and employees. This response indicates cultural transformation is taking hold, with WH serving as a promising approach for promoting wellbeing among patients and employees alike.

Garnering Support for Complementary and Integrative Health Implementation: A Qualitative Study of VA Healthcare Organization Leaders.

Objectives: Healthcare organization leaders' support is critical for successful implementation of new practices, including complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies. Yet little is known about how to garner this support and what motivates leaders to support these therapies. We examined reasons leaders provided or withheld support for CIH therapy implementation, using a multilevel lens to understand motivations influenced by individual, interpersonal, organizational, and system determinants. Design and setting: We conducted qualitative interviews with leaders in seven Veterans Health Administration medical centers that offered at least three CIH therapies to Veterans and were identified as early adopters of CIH therapies. Subjects: Participants included 12 executive leaders and 34 leaders of key clinical services, including primary care, mental health, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and pain. Measures: We used a thematic analysis to examine leaders' narratives of barriers and facilitators to implementation including their attitudes toward CIH therapies, perceptions of evidence, engagement in implementation, and decisions to provide concrete support for CIH therapies. Drawing from Greenhalgh's Diffusion of Innovation framework, we organized themes according to the influence of individual determinants, two levels of inner setting, and outer system context on CIH implementation. Results: Leaders' decisions to provide or withhold support were driven by considerations across multiple levels including (1) individual attitudes/knowledge, perceptions of evidence, and personal experiences; (2) interpersonal interactions with trusted brokers, patients, and loved ones/colleagues/staff; (3) organizational concerns surrounding relative priorities, local resources, and metrics/quality/safety; and (4) system-level policy, bureaucracy, and interorganizational networks. These considerations interacted across levels, with components at organizational and system levels sometimes prevailing over individual perceptions and experiences. Conclusions: Garnering leaders' support for CIH therapy implementation should address their considerations at multiple levels. Implementation strategies designed to shift individual attitudes alone may be insufficient for securing leaders' support without attention to broader organizational and system-level contextual issues.

What Should Health Care Systems Consider When Implementing Complementary and Integrative Health: Lessons from Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVES: Health care systems are increasingly interested in becoming whole health systems that include complementary and integrative health (CIH) approaches. The nation's largest health care system, the Veterans Health Administration (VA), has been transforming to such a system. However, anecdotal evidence suggested that many VA medical centers have faced challenges in implementing CIH approaches, whereas others have flourished. We report on a large-scale, research-operations partnered effort to understand the challenges faced by VA sites and the strategies used to address these to better support VAs implementation of CIH nationally. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured, in-person qualitative interviews with 149 key stakeholders at 8 VA medical centers, with content based on Greenhalgh's implementation framework. For analysis, we identified a priori categories of content aligned with Greenhalgh's framework and then generated additional categories developed inductively, capturing additional implementation experiences. These categories formed a template to aid in coding data. RESULTS: VA sites commonly reported that nine key factors facilitated CIH implementation: (1) organizing individual CIH approaches into one program instead of spreading across several departments; (2) having CIH strategic plans and steering committees; (3) strong, professional, and enthusiastic CIH program leads and practitioners; (4) leadership support; (5) providers' positive attitudes toward CIH; (6) perceptions of patients' attitudes; (7) demonstrating evidence of CIH effectiveness; (8) champions; and (9) effectively marketing. Common challenges included are: (1) difficulties in hiring; (2) insufficient/inconsistent CIH funding; (3) appropriate patient access to CIH approaches; (4) difficulties in coding/documenting CIH use; (5) insufficient/inappropriate space; (6) insufficient staff's and provider's time; and (7) the health care cultural and geographic environments. Sites also reported several successful strategies supporting CIH implementation. CONCLUSIONS: VA sites experience both success and challenges with implementing CIH approaches and have developed a wide range of strategies to support their implementation efforts. This information is potentially useful to other health care organizations considering how best to support CIH provision.

Patient, Primary Care Provider, and Specialist Perspectives on Specialty Care Coordination in an Integrated Health Care System.

Successful coordination of specialty care requires understanding the perspectives of patients, primary care providers, and specialists-that is, the specialty care "triad." This study used qualitative methods to compare these perspectives in an integrated health care system, using diabetes specialty care as an exemplar. Primary care providers and endocrinologists relied on interclinician relationships to coordinate care. Clinicians rarely included patients or other staff in their conceptualization of specialty care coordination. Patients often assumed responsibility for specialty care coordination but struggled to succeed. We identified several opportunities to improve coordination across the triad. In an integrated medical system, the shared organizational structure can facilitate these efforts.

The moral discourse of HIV providers within their organizational context: An ethnographic case study.

OBJECTIVE: Providers make judgments to inform treatment planning, especially when adherence is crucial, as in HIV. We examined the extent these judgments may become intertwined with moral ones, extraneous to patient care, and how these in turn are situated within specific organizational contexts. METHODS: Our ethnographic case study included interviews and observations. Data were analyzed for linguistic markers indexing how providers conceptualized patients and clinic organizational structures and processes. RESULTS: We interviewed 30 providers, observed 43 clinical encounters, and recorded fieldnotes of 30 clinic observations, across 8 geographically-diverse HIV clinics. We found variation, and identified two distinct judgment paradigms: 1) Behavior as individual responsibility: patients were characterized as "good," "behaving," or "socio-paths," and "flakes." Clinical encounters focused on medication reconciliation; 2) Behaviors as socio-culturally embedded: patients were characterized as struggling with housing, work, or relationships. Encounters broadened to problem-solving within patients' life-contexts. In sites with individualized conceptualizations, providers worked independently with limited support services. Sites with socio-culturally embedded conceptualizations had multidisciplinary teams with resources to address patients' life challenges. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: When self-management is viewed as an individual's responsibility, nonadherence may be seen as a moral failing. Multidisciplinary teams may foster perceptions of patients' behaviors as socially embedded.

Should Human Immunodeficiency Virus Specialty Clinics Treat Patients With Hypertension or Refer to Primary Care? An Analysis of Treatment Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Care for people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) increasingly focuses on comorbidities, including hypertension. Evidence indicates that antiretroviral therapy and opportunistic infections are best managed by providers experienced in HIV medicine, but it is unclear how to structure comorbidity care. Approaches include providing comorbidity care in HIV clinics ("consolidated care") or combining HIV care with comorbidity management in primary care clinics ("shared care"). We compared blood pressure (BP) control in HIV clinics practicing consolidated care versus shared care. METHODS: We created a national cohort of Veterans with HIV and hypertension receiving care in HIV clinics in Veterans Administration facilities and merged these data with a survey asking HIV providers how they delivered hypertension care (5794 Veterans in 73 clinics). We defined BP control as BP ≤140/90 mmHg on the most recent measure. We compared patients' likelihood of experiencing BP control in clinics offering consolidated versus shared care, adjusting for patient and clinic characteristics. RESULTS: Forty-two of 73 clinics (57.5%) practiced consolidated care for hypertension. These clinics were larger and more likely to use multidisciplinary teams. The unadjusted frequency of BP control was 65.6% in consolidated care clinics vs 59.4% in shared care clinics (P < .01). The likelihood of BP control remained higher for patients in consolidated care clinics after adjusting for patient and clinic characteristics (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.68). CONCLUSIONS: Patients were more likely to experience BP control in clinics reporting consolidated care compared with clinics reporting shared care. For shared-care clinics, improving care coordination between HIV and primary care clinics may improve outcomes.