County-level Predictors of Growth in Community-based Primary Care Use Among Veterans.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 Choice Act expanded the Veterans Health Administration's (VA) capacity to purchase services for VA enrollees from community providers, yet little is known regarding the growth of Veterans' primary care use in community settings. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to measure county-level growth in VA community-based primary care (CBPC) penetration following the Choice Act and to assess whether CBPC penetration increased in rural counties with limited access to VA facilities. DATA AND SAMPLE: A total of 3132 counties from VA administrative data from 2015 to 2018, Area Health Resources Files, and County Health Rankings. ANALYSIS: We defined the county-level CBPC penetration rate as the proportion of VA-purchased primary care out of all VA-purchased primary care (ie, within and outside VA). We estimated county-level multivariate linear regression models to assess whether rurality and supply of primary care providers and health care facilities were significantly associated with CBPC growth. RESULTS: Nationally, CBPC penetration rates increased from 2.7% in 2015 to 7.3% in 2018. The rurality of the county was associated with a 2-3 percentage point (pp) increase in CBPC penetration growth (P<0.001). The presence of a VA facility was associated with a 1.7 pp decrease in CBPC penetration growth (P<0.001), while lower primary care provider supply was associated with a 0.6 pp increase in CBPC growth (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: CBPC as a proportion of all VA-purchased primary care was small but increased nearly 3-fold between 2015 and 2018. Greater increases in CBPC penetration were concentrated in rural counties and counties without a VA facility, suggesting that community care may enhance primary care access in rural areas with less VA presence.

Roles and Perceptions of Nurses During Implementation of a Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder National Initiative.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, a national priority exists to improve access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Nurses can be an essential component of that care. We examined the perceptions and evolving roles of nurses in a national Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiative designed to improve MOUD access within general medical settings. METHODS: From April 15, 2021, to June 16, 2021, we recruited nurses participating in VHA's Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer Initiative-a national program intending to implement MOUD in general medical settings-to participate in an interview about their roles, perceptions, and experiences. The respondents answered our inquiries through an interview or responded to an email solicitation with written responses, which were then recorded, transcribed, and independently coded to identify themes. RESULTS: Nurses from 10 VHA facilities participated in an interview (n = 7) or completed the questionnaire (n = 4). Inadequate staffing, high patient-to-provider ratios, and time constraints were identified as barriers to MOUD care. Mentorship activities, existing VHA informational resources, and patients' willingness to accept treatment were identified as facilitators of MOUD care. The Stepped Care for Opioid Use Disorder Train the Trainer Initiative processes were acknowledged to promote role confidence, which in turn increased job satisfaction and empowered nurses to become content experts. Respondents often identified nurses as local lead facilitators in MOUD care. CONCLUSIONS: In a national initiative to implement MOUD within general medical settings, nurses identified several barriers and facilitators to MOUD implementation. Nurses play vital collaborative care roles in enhancing access to MOUD.

Barriers to Advance Care Planning in End-Stage Renal Disease: Who is to Blame, and What Can be Done?

Patients with end-stage renal disease experience significant mortality and morbidity, including cognitive decline. Advance care planning has been emphasized as a responsibility and priority of physicians caring for patients with chronic kidney disease in order to align with patient values before decision-making capacity is lost and to avoid suffering. This emphasis has proven ineffective, as illustrated in the case of a patient treated in our hospital. Is this ineffectiveness a consequence of failure in the courtroom or the clinic? Through our own experience we affirm what has been written before: that legal precedent favors intensive treatment in virtually all cases without 'clear and convincing evidence' of a patient's previously declared wishes to the contrary. Equally clear is that more than 20 years of support in the clinical literature suggesting advance care planning early in the course of disease can address challenges in the legal system for those lacking capacity. However, many physicians fail to recognize the need for advance care planning in a timely manner and lack the necessary training to provide it. The need for more training and new tools to recognize opportunities for advance care planning in daily practice remains unmet.