Why Veterans Choose VA Versus non-VA Emergency Care: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: In ensuring the timely delivery of emergency care to Veterans, Veterans Affairs (VA) offers both emergency care services in its own facilities and, increasingly, purchases care for Veterans in non-VA (community) emergency department (ED) settings. Although in recent years emergency care coverage has become the single largest contributor to VA community care spending, no study to date has examined Veteran decision-making as it relates to ED setting choice. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe reasons why Veterans choose VA versus non-VA emergency care settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Veterans Health Administration data were used to identify geographically diverse Veterans who recently used emergency care. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews from December 2018 through March 2020 with 50 Veterans to understand the factors Veterans consider when deciding where to obtain ED care. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We conducted a directed content analysis of interview transcripts and developed a matrix to summarize and categorize each Veteran's decision-making process to compare participants and to identify common patterns. RESULTS: When choosing between VA and non-VA-EDs, Veterans described 3 distinct patterns of decision-making: (1) choosing the closest ED (often community) for acute conditions; (2) traveling farther for VA care due to preference and financial coverage; and (3) selecting VA when both types of ED care were equidistant. Perceptions of community resources, condition-specific needs, financial considerations, and personal preferences dominated the decision-making. For example, most Veterans (74%) rated their acuity as high, and self-perceived severity/urgency of their condition was the most cited factor influencing where Veterans decided to go for ED care. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative results help provide insight into how and why Veterans choose to seek emergency care. As the number of Veterans treated in non-VA EDs continues to rise, VA and non-VA ED providers as well as policy makers may benefit from understanding the challenges Veterans face when making this decision.

Evaluating the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic: A Qualitative Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may improve care for patients with heart failure. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) is a patient survey that captures symptom frequency, symptom burden, physical limitations, social limitations, and quality of life. Despite the utility of PROs and the KCCQ-12, the implementation and routine use of these measures can be difficult. We conducted an evaluation of clinician perceptions of the KCCQ-12 to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation into clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted interviews with cardiologists from 4 institutions across the United States and Canada (n=16) and observed clinic visits at 1 institution in Northern California (n=5). Qualitative analysis was conducted in 2 rounds: (1) rapid analysis constructed around major themes related to the aims of the study and (2) content analysis with codes derived from the rapid analysis and implementation science. RESULTS: Most heart failure physicians and advanced practice clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 was acceptable, appropriate, and useful in clinical care. Clinician engagement efforts, trialability, and the straightforward design of the KCCQ-12 facilitated its use in clinical care. Further opportunities identified to facilitate implementation include more streamlined integration into the electronic health record and comprehensive staff education on PROs. Participants highlighted that the KCCQ-12 was useful in clinic visits to improve the consistency of patient history taking, focus patient-clinician conversations, collect a more accurate account of patient quality of life, track trends in patient well-being over time, and refine clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: In this qualitative study, clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 enhanced several aspects of heart failure patient care. Use of the KCCQ-12 was facilitated by a robust clinician engagement campaign and the design of the KCCQ-12 itself. Future implementation of PROs in heart failure clinic should focus on streamlining electronic health record integration and providing additional staff education on the value of PROs. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Development of a tailored survey to evaluate a patient-centered initiative.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-centered care initiatives have proliferated, but assessing their effectiveness requires measures tailored to their likely effects. In this article, we describe the development and pilot testing of patient surveys used to assess change in patients' cancer care experiences over time in response to a patient-centered care initiative. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: Domains of patient-centered care were informed by the goals of the initiative and a review of existing tools. Items were selected and modified from 6 domains of validated or semivalidated instruments. Items were piloted with patients with cancer in waiting room settings to further assess the relevance and clarity of items, whether important concepts were missing, and acceptability regarding place and timing of the surveys and to estimate baseline top box scores (percentage of patients scoring an item the highest quality level) to minimize likely ceiling effects. The instrument was then administered to a consecutive sample of Stanford Cancer Center patients. Baseline item responses, Cronbach's alpha, and response bias were estimated. RESULTS: Items were modified based on patient feedback, top box scores, and reassessment of the domains. Over 6 months, 11,273 patients were surveyed, with a 49.7% response rate. Baseline top box scores ranged from 41.7% to 75.0% for any given item. Reliability and internal consistency were high for all domains (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.80) except for the access domain. CONCLUSIONS: We developed reliable instruments to evaluate the essential elements of a patient-centered care initiative at an academic medical center, which minimized patient burden and maximized the response rate.

Impact of rural residence and health system structure on quality of liver care.

BACKGROUND: Specialist physician concentration in urban areas can affect access and quality of care for rural patients. As effective drug treatment for hepatitis C (HCV) becomes increasingly available, the extent to which rural patients needing HCV specialists face access or quality deficits is unknown. We sought to determine the influence of rural residency on access to HCV specialists and quality of liver care. METHODS: The study used a national cohort of 151,965 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients with HCV starting in 2005 and followed to 2009. The VHA's constant national benefit structure reduces the impact of insurance as an explanation for observed disparities. Multivariate cox proportion regression models for each quality indicator were performed. RESULTS: Thirty percent of VHA patients with HCV reside in rural and highly rural areas. Compared to urban residents, highly rural (HR 0.70, CI 0.65-0.75) and rural (HR 0.96, CI 0.94-0.97) residents were significantly less likely to access HCV specialty care. The quality indicators were more mixed. While rural residents were less likely to receive HIV screening, there were no significant differences in hepatitis vaccinations, endoscopic variceal and hepatocellular carcinoma screening between the geographic subgroups. Of note, highly rural (HR 1.31, CI 1.14-1.50) and rural residents (HR 1.06, CI 1.02-1.10) were more likely to receive HCV therapy. Of those treated for HCV, a third received therapy from a non-specialist provider. CONCLUSION: Rural patients have less access to HCV specialists, but this does not necessarily translate to quality deficits. The VHA's efforts to improve specialty care access, rural patient behavior and decentralization of HCV therapy beyond specialty providers may explain this contradiction. Lessons learned within the VHA are critical for US healthcare systems restructuring into accountable care organizations that acquire features of integrated systems.

General internists' beliefs, behaviors, and perceived barriers to routine HIV screening in primary care.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends routine HIV screening in primary care but little is known about general internists' views of this practice. We conducted a national, cross-sectional, Internet-based survey of 446 general internists in 2009 regarding their HIV screening behaviors, beliefs, and perceived barriers to routine HIV screening in outpatient internal medicine practices. Internists' awareness of revised CDC guidelines was high (88%), but only 52% had increased HIV testing, 61% offered HIV screening regardless of risk, and a median 2% (range 0-67%) of their patients were tested in the past month. Internists practicing in perceived higher risk communities reported greater HIV screening. Consent requirements were a barrier to screening, particularly for VA providers and those practicing in states with HIV consent statutes inconsistent with CDC guidelines. Interventions that promote HIV screening regardless of risk and streamlined consent requirements will likely increase adoption of routine HIV screening in general medicine practices.

Provider and practice characteristics associated with use of rapid HIV Testing by general internists.

BACKGROUND: Rapid HIV testing could increase routine HIV testing. Most previous studies of rapid testing were conducted in acute care settings, and few described the primary care providers' perspective. OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics of general internal medicine physicians with access to rapid HIV testing, and to determine whether such access is associated with differences in HIV-testing practices or perceived HIV-testing barriers. DESIGN: Web-based cross-sectional survey conducted in 2009. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 406 physician members of the Society of General Internal Medicine who supervise residents or provide care in outpatient settings. MAIN MEASURES: Surveys assessed provider and practice characteristics, HIV-testing types, HIV-testing behavior, and potential barriers to HIV testing. RESULTS: Among respondents, 15% had access to rapid HIV testing. In multivariable analysis, physicians were more likely to report access to rapid testing if they were non-white (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22, 0.91), had more years since completing training (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02, 1.10), practiced in the northeastern US (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.28, 4.32), or their practice included a higher percentage of uninsured patients (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01, 1.04). Internists with access to rapid testing reported fewer barriers to HIV testing. More respondents with rapid than standard testing reported at least 25% of their patients received HIV testing (51% versus 35%, p = 0.02). However, access to rapid HIV testing was not significantly associated with the estimated proportion of patients receiving HIV testing within the previous 30 days (7.24% vs. 4.58%, p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Relatively few internists have access to rapid HIV testing in outpatient settings, with greater availability of rapid testing in community-based clinics and in the northeastern US. Future research may determine whether access to rapid testing in primary care settings will impact routinizing HIV testing.

Heart failure: the hidden problem of pain.

Although dyspnea and fatigue are hallmark symptoms of heart failure (HF), the burden of pain may be underrecognized. This study assessed pain in HF and identified contributing factors. As part of a multicenter study, 96 veterans with HF (96% male, 67+/-11 years) completed measures of symptoms, pain (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), functional status (Functional Morbidity Index), and psychological state (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2). Single items from the BPI interference and the quality of life-end of life measured social and spiritual well-being. Demographic and clinical variables were obtained by chart audit. Correlation and linear regression models evaluated physical, emotional, social, and spiritual factors associated with pain. Fifty-three (55.2%) HF patients reported pain, with a majority (36 [37.5%]) rating their pain as moderate to severe (pain>or=4/10). The presence of pain was reported more frequently than dyspnea (67 [71.3%] vs. 58 [61.7%]). Age (P=0.02), psychological (depression: P=0.002; anxiety: P=0.001), social (P<0.001), spiritual (P=0.010), and physical (health status: P=0.001; symptom frequency: P=0.000; functional status: P=0.002) well-being were correlated with pain severity. In the resulting model, 38% of the variance in pain severity was explained (P<0.001); interference with relations (P<0.001) and symptom number (P=0.007) contributed to pain severity. The association of physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domains with pain suggests that multidisciplinary interventions are needed to address the complex nature of pain in HF.

Suboptimal control of atherosclerotic disease risk factors after cardiac and cerebrovascular procedures.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Undergoing a carotid endarterectomy, a coronary artery bypass graft, or a percutaneous coronary intervention provides an opportunity to optimize control of blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein. METHODS: Using Veterans Administration databases, we determined whether patients who underwent a carotid endarterectomy (n=252), coronary artery bypass graft (n=486), or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=720) in 2002 to 2003 at 5 Veterans Administration Healthcare Systems had guideline-recommended control of blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein in 12-month periods before and after a vascular procedure. Postprocedure control of risk factors across procedure groups was compared using chi(2) tests and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The proportion of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy who had optimal control of both blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein increased from 23% before the procedure to 33% after the procedure (P=0.05) compared with increases from 32% to 43% for coronary artery bypass graft (P=0.001) and from 29% to 45% for percutaneous coronary intervention (P=0.002). Compared with the carotid endarterectomy group, the percutaneous coronary intervention group was more likely to achieve optimal control of blood pressure (OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.42 to 2.59) or low-density lipoprotein (OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.26) and the coronary artery bypass graft group was more likely to achieve optimal control of blood pressure (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.42 to 2.59). Postprocedure cardiology visits, increase in medication intensity, and greater frequency of outpatient visits were also associated with optimal postprocedure risk factor control. CONCLUSIONS: Although modest improvements in risk factor control were detected, a majority of patients in each vascular procedure group did not achieve optimal risk factor control. More effective risk factor control programs are needed among most vascular procedure patients.