Needs for Successful Engagement in Telemedicine Among Rural Older US Veterans and Their Caregivers: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine is an important option for rural older adults who often must travel far distances to clinics or forgo essential care. In 2014, the Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers (GRECC) of the US Veterans Health Administration (VA) established a national telemedicine network called GRECC Connect. This network increased access to geriatric specialty care for the 1.4 million rural VA-enrolled veterans aged 65 years or older. The use of telemedicine skyrocketed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which disproportionately impacted older adults, exacerbating disparities in specialty care access as overburdened systems shut down in-person services. This surge presented a unique opportunity to study the supports necessary for those who would forgo telemedicine if in-person care were available. OBJECTIVE: In spring 2021, we interviewed veterans and their informal caregivers to (1) elicit their experiences attempting to prepare for a video visit with a GRECC Connect geriatric specialist and (2) explore facilitators and barriers to successful engagement in a telemedicine visit. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative evaluation with patients and their caregivers who agreed to participate in at least 1 GRECC Connect telemedicine visit in the previous 3 months. A total of 30 participants from 6 geographically diverse GRECC Connect hub sites agreed to participate. Semistructured interviews were conducted through telephone or the VA's videoconference platform for home telemedicine visits (VA Video Connect) per participant preference. We observed challenges and, when needed, provided real-time technical support to facilitate VA Video Connect use for interviews. All interviews were recorded with permission and professionally transcribed. A team of 5 researchers experienced in qualitative research analyzed interview transcripts using rapid qualitative analysis. RESULTS: From 30 participant interviews, we identified the following 4 categories of supports participants described regarding successful engagement in telemedicine, as defined by visit completion, satisfaction, and willingness to engage in telemedicine in the future: (1) caregiver presence to facilitate technology setup and communication; (2) flexibility in visit modality (eg, video from home or a clinic or telephone); (3) technology support (eg, determining device compatibility or providing instruction and on-demand assistance); and (4) assurance of comfort with web-based communication, including orientation to features like closed captioning. Supports were needed at multiple points before the visit, and participants stressed the importance of eliciting the varying needs and preferences of each patient-caregiver dyad. Though many initially agreed to a telemedicine visit because of pandemic-related clinic closures, participants were satisfied with telemedicine and willing to use it for other types of health care visits. CONCLUSIONS: To close gaps in telemedicine use among rural older adults, supports must be tailored to individuals, accounting for technology availability and comfort, as well as availability of and need for caregiver involvement. Comprehensive scaffolding of support starts well before the first telemedicine visit.

"It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making. RESULTS: Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.

Tackling Guideline Non-concordance: Primary Care Barriers to Incorporating Life Expectancy into Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making-A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first point of contact for discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) with patients. While guidelines recommend against screening people with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are less likely to benefit, these patients are regularly referred for LCS. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand barriers PCPs face to incorporating life expectancy into LCS decision-making for patients who otherwise meet eligibility criteria, and how a hypothetical point-of-care tool could support patient selection. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on semi-structured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one PCPs who refer patients for LCS, from six Veterans Health Administration facilities. APPROACH: We thematically analyzed interviews to understand how PCPs incorporated life expectancy into LCS decision-making and PCPs' receptivity to a point-of-care tool to support patient selection. Final themes were organized according to the Cabana et al. framework Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines, capturing the influence of clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on LCS appropriateness determinations. KEY RESULTS: PCP referrals to LCS for patients with LLE were influenced by limited knowledge of the life expectancy threshold at which patients are less likely to benefit from LCS, discomfort estimating life expectancy, fear of missing cancer at the point of early detection, and prioritization of factors such as quality of life, patient values, clinician-patient relationship, and family support. PCPs were receptive to a decision support tool to inform and communicate LCS appropriateness decisions if easy to use and integrated into clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests knowledge gaps and attitudes may drive decisions to offer screening despite LLE, a behavior counter to guideline recommendations. Integrating a LCS decision support tool that incorporates life expectancy within the electronic medical record and existing clinical workflows may be one acceptable solution to improve guideline concordance and increase confidence in selecting high benefit patients for LCS.

The Development and Use of a New Visual Tool (REVISIT) to Support Participant Recall: Web-Based Interview Study Among Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative health services research often relies on semistructured or in-depth interviews to develop a deeper understanding of patient experiences, motivations, and perspectives. The quality of data gathered is contingent upon a patient's recall capacity; yet, studies have shown that recall of medical information is low. Threats to generating rich and detailed interview data may be more prevalent when interviewing older adults. OBJECTIVE: We developed and studied the feasibility of using a tool, Remembering Healthcare Encounters Visually and Interactively (REVISIT), which has been created to aid the recall of a specific telemedicine encounter to provide health services research teams with a visual tool, to improve qualitative interviews with older adults. METHODS: The REVISIT visual appointment summary was developed to facilitate web-based interviews with our participants as part of an evaluation of a geriatric telemedicine program. Our primary aims were to aid participant recall, maintain focus on the index visit, and establish a shared understanding of the visit between participants and interviewers. The authors' experiences and observations developing REVISIT and using it during videoconference interviews (N=16) were systematically documented and synthesized. We discuss these experiences with REVISIT and suggest considerations for broader implementation and future research to expand upon this preliminary work. RESULTS: REVISIT enhanced the interview process by providing a focus and catalyst for discussion and supporting rapport-building with participants. REVISIT appeared to support older patients' and caregivers' recollection of a clinical visit, helping them to share additional details about their experience. REVISIT was difficult to read for some participants, however, and could not be used for phone interviews. CONCLUSIONS: REVISIT is a promising tool to enhance the quality of data collected during interviews with older, rural adults and caregivers about a health care encounter. This novel tool may aid recall of health care experiences for those groups for whom it may be more challenging to collect accurate, rich qualitative data (eg, those with cognitive impairment or complex medical care), allowing health services research to include more diverse patient experiences.

What Goes into Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening? Factors Associated with Clinician Judgments of Suitability for Screening.

Rationale: Achieving the net benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS) depends on optimizing patient selection. Objective: To identify factors associated with clinician assessments that a patient was unlikely to benefit from LCS ("LCS-inappropriate") because of comorbidities or limited life expectancy. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients assessed for LCS at 30 Veterans Health Administration facilities from January 1, 2015 to February 1, 2021. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine factors associated with clinicians' designations of LCS inappropriateness (primary outcome), accounting for 3-year predicted probability (i.e., competing risk) of non-lung cancer death. Measurements and Main Results: Among 38,487 LCS-eligible patients, 1,671 (4.3%) were deemed LCS-inappropriate by clinicians, whereas 4,383 (11.4%) had an estimated 3-year competing risk of non-lung cancer death greater than 20%. Patients with higher competing risks of non-lung cancer death were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate (odds ratio [OR], 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.32-3.05). Older patients (ages 75-80; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.78) and those with interstitial lung disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.51-2.59) were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate than would be explained by competing risk of non-lung cancer death, whereas patients currently smoking (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73) were less likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate, suggesting that clinicians over- or underweighted these factors. The probability of being deemed LCS-inappropriate varied from 0.4% to 74%, depending on the clinician making the assessment (median OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.89-3.25). Conclusion: Concerningly, the likelihood that a patient is deemed LCS-inappropriate is more strongly associated with the clinician making the assessment than with patient characteristics. Patient selection may be optimized by providing decision support to help clinicians assess net LCS benefit.

Harm reduction stories: leveraging graphic medicine to engage veterans in substance use services within the VA.

BACKGROUND: Harm reduction strategies can decrease morbidity and mortality associated with substance use. Various barriers limit conversation around substance use between clinicians and patients. Graphic medicine techniques can inform and encourage patient-centered conversations about substance use. We describe the co-development of a harm reduction-focused graphic medicine comic that depicts the infectious risks associated with injection drug use and patient-centered approaches to providing education about potential risk mitigation strategies. METHODS: We formed a co-design group of veterans with lived experience with substance use, physicians, health services researchers, and community-based harm reduction leaders. Over the course of ten sessions, the co-design team developed a storyline and key messages, reviewed draft content and worked with a graphic designer to develop a comic incorporating the veterans' input. During each session, co-design leads presented drafts of the comic and invited feedback from the group. The comic was edited and adapted via this iterative process. RESULTS: The comic depicts a fictionalized clinical vignette in which a patient develops an injection-related abscess and presents to their primary care provider. The dialogue highlights key healthcare principles, including patient autonomy and agency, and highlights strategies for safer use, rather than emphasizing abstinence. Feedback from co-design group participants highlights lessons learned during the development process. DISCUSSION: Graphic medicine is ideally suited for a patient-centered curriculum about harm reduction. This project is one of several interventions that will be integrated into VA facilities nationally to support incorporation of harm reduction principles into the care of persons who inject drugs.

The integration of harm reduction services in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA): a qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Substance use is common among U.S. military veterans and veterans are at high risk for negative consequences associated with substance use, such as injection-related infections and overdose. Although harm reduction services (HRS) are highly evidence-based, implementation in traditional healthcare settings has been limited. This formative, qualitative study sought to identify barriers and facilitators to the integration of HRS and identify appropriate implementation strategies to support the optimized integration of a comprehensive bundle of HRS in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews explored how harm reduction is currently understood by VHA providers and elicited input on perceived facilitators and barriers to implementation. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis and the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) implementation framework was used to organize findings. Results were then mapped to relevant implementation strategies using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research - Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR - ERIC) tool. RESULTS: 15 interviews with VHA providers were conducted across 5 sites. Respondents reported that current HRS are fragmented and dependent on the knowledge, time, and comfort level of individual providers. Stigma around substance use at the patient, provider, and institutional levels was noted to be a key barrier to HRS adoption. Based on identified barriers and facilitators, strategies that may be effective for increasing adoption of HRS include engagement of champions, communication and educational strategies, and adaptation of existing infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the barriers identified in this formative study may be addressed using evidence-based implementation strategies. Additional research is needed to identify implementation strategies that are effective for addressing stigma, which is perceived to be a persistent challenge to the provision of integrated harm reduction services.

Perceived benefits of geriatric specialty telemedicine among rural patients and caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: Explore the perceived benefits of a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) geriatric specialty telemedicine service (GRECC Connect) among rural, older patients and caregivers to contribute to an assessment of its quality and value. DATA SOURCES: In Spring 2021, we interviewed a geographically diverse sample of rural, older patients and their caregivers who participated in GRECC Connect telemedicine visits. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional qualitative study focused on patient and caregiver experiences with telemedicine, including perceived benefits and challenges. DATA COLLECTION: We conducted 30 semi-structured qualitative interviews with rural, older (≥65) patients enrolled in the VHA and their caregivers via videoconference or phone. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a rapid qualitative analysis approach. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participants described geriatric specialty telemedicine visits focused on cognitive assessments, tailored physical therapy, medication management, education on disease progression, support for managing multiple comorbidities, and suggestions to improve physical functioning. Participants reported that, in addition to prescribing medications and ordering tests, clinicians expedited referrals, coordinated care, and listened to and validated both patient and caregiver concerns. Perceived benefits included improved patient health; increased patient and caregiver understanding and confidence around symptom management; and greater feelings of empowerment, hopefulness, and support. Challenges included difficulty accessing some recommended programs and services, uncertainty related to instructions or follow-up, and not receiving as much information or treatment as desired. The content of visits was well aligned with the domains of the Age-Friendly Health Systems and Geriatric 5Ms frameworks (Medication, Mentation, Mobility, what Matters most, and Multi-complexity). CONCLUSIONS: Alignment of patient and caregiver experiences with widely-used models of comprehensive geriatric care indicates that high-quality geriatric care can be provided through virtual modalities. Additional work is needed to develop strategies to address challenges and optimize and expand access to geriatric specialty telemedicine.

Factors Associated With Declining Lung Cancer Screening After Discussion With a Physician in a Cohort of US Veterans.

Importance: Lung cancer screening (LCS) is underused in the US, particularly in underserved populations, and little is known about factors associated with declining LCS. Guidelines call for shared decision-making when LCS is offered to ensure informed, patient-centered decisions. Objective: To assess how frequently veterans decline LCS and examine factors associated with declining LCS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included LCS-eligible US veterans who were offered LCS between January 1, 2013, and February 1, 2021, by a physician at 1 of 30 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities that routinely used electronic health record clinical reminders documenting LCS eligibility and veterans' decisions to accept or decline LCS. Data were obtained from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse or Medicare claims files from the VA Information Resource Center. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was documentation, in clinical reminders, that veterans declined LCS after a discussion with a physician. Logistic regression analyses with physicians and facilities as random effects were used to assess factors associated with declining LCS compared with agreeing to LCS. Results: Of 43 257 LCS-eligible veterans who were offered LCS (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [5.8] years), 95.9% were male, 84.2% were White, and 37.1% lived in a rural zip code; 32.0% declined screening. Veterans were less likely to decline LCS if they were younger (age 55-59 years: odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.64-0.74; age 60-64 years: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85), were Black (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87), were Hispanic (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78), did not have to make co-payments (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99), or had more frequent VHA health care utilization (outpatient: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.72; emergency department: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92). Veterans were more likely to decline LCS if they were older (age 70-74 years: OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.37; age 75-80 years: OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.73-2.17), lived farther from a VHA screening facility (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08), had spent more days in long-term care (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19), had a higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), or had specific cardiovascular or mental health conditions (congestive heart failure: OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.39; stroke: OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28; schizophrenia: OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.60-2.19). The physician and facility offering LCS accounted for 19% and 36% of the variation in declining LCS, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, older veterans with serious comorbidities were more likely to decline LCS and Black and Hispanic veterans were more likely to accept it. Variation in LCS decisions was accounted for more by the facility and physician offering LCS than by patient factors. These findings suggest that shared decision-making conversations in which patients play a central role in guiding care may enhance patient-centered care and address disparities in LCS.

Invasive Procedures and Associated Complications After Initial Lung Cancer Screening in a National Cohort of Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about rates of invasive procedures and associated complications after lung cancer screening (LCS) in nontrial settings. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the frequency of invasive procedures, complication rates, and factors associated with complications in a national sample of veterans screened for lung cancer? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of veterans who underwent LCS in any Veterans Health Administration (VA) facility between 2013 and 2019 and identified veterans who underwent invasive procedures within 10 months of initial LCS. The primary outcome was presence of a complication within 10 days after an invasive procedure. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine patient- and facility-level factors associated with complications resulting from an invasive procedure. RESULTS: Our cohort of 82,641 veterans who underwent LCS was older, more racially diverse, and had more comorbidities than National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) participants. Overall, 1,741 veterans (2.1%) underwent an invasive procedure after initial screening, including 856 (42.3%) bronchoscopies, 490 (24.2%) transthoracic needle biopsies, and 423 (20.9%) thoracic surgeries. Among veterans who underwent procedures, 151 (8.7%) experienced a major complication (eg, respiratory failure, prolonged hospitalization) and an additional 203 (11.7%) experienced an intermediate complication (eg, pneumothorax, pleural effusion). Veterans who underwent thoracic surgery (OR, 7.70; 95% CI, 5.48-10.81), underwent multiple nonsurgical procedures (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.92), or carried a dementia diagnosis (OR, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.79-8.52) were more likely to experience complications. Invasive procedures were performed less often than in the NLST (2.1% vs 4.2%), but veterans were more likely to experience complications after each type of procedure. INTERPRETATION: These findings may reflect a higher threshold to perform procedures in veteran populations with multiple comorbidities and higher risks of complications. Future work should focus on optimizing the identification of patients whose chance of benefit likely outweighs the complication risks.

Six Moments of Infection Prevention in Injection Drug Use: An Educational Toolkit for Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Injection drug use-associated bacterial and viral infections are increasing. Expanding access to harm reduction services, such as safe injection education, are effective prevention strategies. However, these strategies have had limited uptake. New tools are needed to improve provider capacity to facilitate dissemination of these evidence-based interventions. METHODS: The "Six Moments of Infection Prevention in Injection Drug Use" provider educational tool was developed using a global, rather than pathogen-specific, infection prevention framework, highlighting the prevention of invasive bacterial and fungal infections in additional to viral pathogens. The tool's effectiveness was tested using a short, paired pre/post survey that assessed provider knowledge and attitudes about harm reduction. RESULTS: Seventy-five respondents completed the paired surveys. At baseline, 17 respondents (22.6%) indicated that they had received no prior training in harm reduction and 28 (37.3%) reported discomfort counseling people who inject drugs (PWID). Sixty respondents (80.0%) reported they had never referred a patient to a syringe service program (SSP); of those, 73.3% cited lack of knowledge regarding locations of SSPs and 40.0% reported not knowing where to access information regarding SSPs. After the training, 66 (88.0%) reported that they felt more comfortable educating PWID (P < .0001), 65 respondents (86.6%) reported they planned to use the Six Moments model in their own practice, and 100% said they would consider referring patients to an SSP in the future. CONCLUSIONS: The Six Moments model emphasizes the importance of a global approach to infection prevention and harm reduction. This educational intervention can be used as part of a bundle of implementation strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality in PWID.

Implementation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for women of color: Perspectives from healthcare providers and staff from three clinical settings.

Women of color (WOC) account for 83% of new HIV infections among women in the United States. While pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a safe, effective HIV prevention method for women, WOC are less likely to be prescribed PrEP than other populations. Guided by an implementation science research framework, we investigated the implementation of a PrEP initiative for WOC in a US city with high HIV incidence. Across three clinical sites, only three WOC were prescribed PrEP after one year. Analysis of qualitative interviews with clinic staff and providers identified time constraints, reluctance to prescribe PrEP, and discomfort with counseling as implementation barriers. Implementation facilitators included staff and leadership support for PrEP, alignment of PrEP services with organizational missions, and having a centralized PrEP Coordinator. By addressing these identified implementation barriers and facilitators, clinic staff and providers can ensure that WOC are provided with the full range of HIV prevention options.

Adherence to Follow-up Testing Recommendations in US Veterans Screened for Lung Cancer, 2015-2019.

Importance: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality with close follow-up and adherence to management recommendations. Little is known about factors associated with adherence to LCS in real-world practice, with data limited to case series from selected LCS programs. Objective: To analyze adherence to follow-up based on standardized follow-up recommendations in a national cohort and to identify factors associated with delayed or absent follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities across the US. Veterans were screened for lung cancer between 2015 to 2019 with sufficient follow-up time to receive recommended evaluation. Patient- and facility-level logistic regression analyses were performed. Data were analyzed from November 26, 2019, to December 16, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of the recommended next step after initial LCS according to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) category, as captured in VHA or Medicare claims. Results: Of 28 294 veterans (26 835 [94.8%] men; 21 969 individuals [77.6%] were White; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [5.5] years) who had an initial LCS examination, 17 863 veterans (63.1%) underwent recommended follow-up within the expected timeframe, whereas 3696 veterans (13.1%) underwent late evaluation, and 4439 veterans (15.7%) had no apparent evaluation. Facility-level differences were associated with 9.2% of the observed variation in rates of late or absent evaluation. In multivariable-adjusted models, Black veterans (odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.10-1.29]), veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.03-1.23]), veterans with substance use disorders (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.01-1.22]), veterans with lower income (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.98]), and those living at a greater distance from a VHA facility (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.10]) were more likely to experience delayed or no follow-up; veterans with higher risk findings (Lung-RADS category 4 vs Lung-RADS category 1: OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.43]) and those screened in high LCS volume facilities (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.67]) or academic facilities (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80-0.92]) were less likely to experience delayed or no follow-up. In sensitivity analyses, varying how stringently adherence was defined, expected evaluation ranged from 14 486 veterans (49.7%) under stringent definitions to 20 578 veterans (78.8%) under liberal definitions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study that captured follow-up care from the integrated VHA health care system and Medicare, less than two-thirds of patients received timely recommended follow-up after initial LCS, with higher risk of delayed or absent follow-up among marginalized populations, such as Black individuals, individuals with mental health disorders, and individuals with low income, that have long experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes. Future work should focus on identifying facilities that promote high adherence and disseminating successful strategies to promote equity in LCS among marginalized populations.

Access to Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration: Does Geographic Distribution Match Need in the Population?

BACKGROUND: Studies show uneven access to Medicare-approved lung cancer screening (LCS) programs across the United States. The Veterans Health Administration (VA), the largest national US integrated health system, is potentially well positioned to coordinate LCS services across regional units to ensure that access matches distribution of need nationally. RESEARCH QUESTION: To what extent does LCS access (considering both VA and partner sites) and use match the distribution of eligible Veterans at state and regional levels? METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, we identified LCS examinations in VA facilities between 2013 and 2019 from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and plotted VA facilities with LCS geographically. We compared estimated LCS rates (unique Veterans screened per LCS-eligible population) across states and VA regional units. Finally, we assessed whether the VA's new partnership with the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer (which includes more than 750 LCS centers) closes geographic gaps in LCS access. RESULTS: We identified 71,898 LCS examinations in 96 of 139 (69.1%) VA facilities in 44 states between 2013 and 2019, with substantial variation across states (0-8 VA LCS facilities per state). Screening rates among eligible Veterans in the population varied more than 30-fold across regional networks (rate ratio, 33.6; 95% CI, 30.8-36.7 for VA New England vs Veterans Integrated Service Network 4), with weak correlation between eligible populations and LCS rates (coefficient, -0.30). Partnering with the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer expands capacity and access (eg, all states now have ≥ 1 VA or partner LCS site), but 9 of the 12 states with the highest proportions of rural Veterans still have ≤ 3 total LCS facilities. INTERPRETATION: Disparities in LCS access exist based on where Veterans live, particularly for rural Veterans, even after partnering with the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer. The nationally integrated VA system has an opportunity to leverage regional resources to distribute and coordinate LCS services better to ensure equitable access.

The temporal nature of social context: Insights from the daily lives of patients with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Patients' life contexts are increasingly recognized as important, as evidenced by growing attention to the Social Determinants of Health (SDoH). This attention may be particularly valuable for patients with complex needs, like those with HIV, who are more likely to experience age-related comorbidities, mental health or substance use issues. Understanding patient perceptions of their life context can advance SDoH approaches. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand how aging patients with HIV think about their life context and explored if and how their reported context was documented in their electronic medical records (EMRs). DESIGN: We combined life story interviews and EMR data to understand the health-related daily life experiences of patients with HIV. Patients over 50 were recruited from two US Department of Veterans Affairs HIV clinics. Narrative analysis was used to organize data by life events and health-related metrics. KEY RESULTS: EMRs of 15 participants documented an average of 19 diagnoses and 10 medications but generally failed to include social contexts salient to patients. In interviews, HIV was discussed primarily in response to direct interviewer questions. Instead, participants raised past trauma, current social engagement, and concern about future health with varying salience. This led us to organize the narratives temporally according to past-, present-, or future-orientation. "Past-focused" narratives dwelled on unresolved experiences with social institutions like the school system, military or marriage. "Present-focused" narratives emphasized daily life challenges, like social isolation. "Future-focused" narratives were dominated by concerns that aging would limit activities. CONCLUSIONS: A temporally informed understanding of patients' life circumstances that are the foundation of their individualized SDoH could better focus care plans by addressing contextual concerns salient to patients. Trust-building may be a critical first step in caring for past-focused patients. Present-focused patients may benefit from support groups. Future-focused patients may desire discussing long term care options.

Heat Sources in a Biosafety Cabinet Compromise Experimental and User Protection.

Introduction: Keeping a contamination free environment in the laboratory has commonly been achieved by one of two ways: a flame or a biosafety cabinet (BSC). However, it has been frequently observed that these two practices have been combined, where a heat source has been used within the BSC. As flames require flammable gasses and cause hot air to rise, it was hypothesized that these could lead to a loss of BSC containment, as BSCs rely on unidirectional downflow air. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine whether BSCs can maintain containment when a heat source is operated within the work area. Methods: Several heat sources (Bunsen burner, High Heat Bunsen Burner, Spirit Lamp and Bacti-cinerator) were placed within two sizes of BSCs (4-foot and 6-foot), and smoke was used to visualize airflow disturbances, air cleanliness was measured by particle counting , and aerosol microbiological testing was conducted to ascertain containment. The risk of introducing a flammable gas into a BSC was also calculated. Results: Large flamed Bunsen burners were found to have the most detrimental effects on the ability of the BSC to maintain containment, especially in the center of the work area, while the smaller heat sources were more variable. Containment was completely lost in the 4-foot BSC, whereas the 6-foot BSC was capable of maintaining containment in only a few conditions. The BSC was also calculated to be able to maintain the required volume of flammable gas needed to operate the burners, not taking into consideration unintended leaks. Conclusions: Overall, it was determined that BSCs cannot operate safely and reliably while housing a heat source, as it could cause unexpected contamination of the work or the worker, or BSC ignition or explosion.