Benchmark findings from a veteran electronic patient-reported outcomes evaluation from a chronic pain management telehealth program.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability and negatively impacts biological/physical, psychological, and social aspects of life resulting in significant pain interference or disability. This project was part of a longitudinal mixed-methods implementation evaluation of the TelePain-Empower Veterans Program (EVP), a non-pharmacological chronic pain intervention. The purpose of this quality management project was to examine electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROs) including primary pain-related (intensity, interference, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia) and secondary outcomes (physical, psychological, acceptance, social) to determine TelePain-EVP effectiveness. Secondary purpose was to examine dosing effects to better understand potential dose relationships between EVP use and ePROs. METHODS: Standardized ePRO measures were examined at week 1 (baseline), week 10 (post-EVP), and week 26 (follow-up). Qualtrics, a cloud-based platform was used to collect ePRO data at each time point. Veterans that completed at-least one survey at any specified time point were categorized as responders (n = 221). Linear-mixed models (LMMs) were fit to assess changes for each primary and secondary ePRO. RESULTS: Participants ranged from 24 to 81 years old; veterans were typically male (65.16%), black or African American (76.47%), married or partnered (41.63%), attended at-least some college or vocational school (67.87%), and reported low back as their primary pain location (29.41%). There was a significant decrease in pain catastrophizing from baseline to post-TelePain-EVP (p < .001). However, pain catastrophizing improvement from baseline was not present at week 26 (p = .116). Pain interference also decreased from baseline to post-treatment (p = .05), but this improvement did not exceed the adjusted significance threshold. Additional pre-post improvements were also observed for certain secondary ePROs: psychological (anxiety, depression), acceptance (activities engagement). Only the activities engagement effect remained 26 weeks from baseline. Mixed results were observed for EVP dose across primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this evaluation indicate that TelePain-EVP has positive outcomes for certain pain (catastrophizing), psychological (anxiety, depression), and acceptance (activities engagement) for veterans with chronic pain. More TelePain related studies and enterprise-wide evaluations are needed along with comparative and cost effectiveness methods to determine patient benefits and the economic value gained of treatment options such as TelePain-EVP.

Qualitative Evaluation Informs the Implementation of a Telehealth Program to Manage Chronic Pain.

In response to the opioid epidemic and high rates of chronic pain among the veteran population, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs implemented the TelePain-Empower Veterans Program (EVP), a nonpharmacological pain management program for veterans. Delivered virtually, TelePain-EVP incorporates integrated health components (Whole Health, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, and Mindful Movement) through interdisciplinary personalized coaching. The objective of this quality improvement project was to evaluate the implementation of TelePain-EVP to identify determinants to implementation, benefits and challenges to participation, and recommendations for future direction. We used a qualitative descriptive design to conduct semistructured telephone interviews with TelePain-EVP leaders (n = 3), staff (n = 10), and veterans (n = 22). The interview guides aligned with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Thematic content analysis organized and characterized findings. Several CFIR domains emerged as determinants relevant to program implementation, including innovation (eg, design); individuals (eg, deliverers, recipients); inner (eg, communications) and outer settings (eg, local conditions); and implementation process (eg, reflecting and evaluating). Identified determinants included facilitators (eg, virtual delivery) and barriers (eg, staff shortages). Participants reported improvements in pain management coping skills, interpersonal relationships, and sense of community, but no self-reported reductions in pain or medication use. Program improvement recommendations included using centralized staff to address vacancies, collecting electronic data, offering structured training, and providing course materials to veteran participants. Qualitative data can inform the sustained implementation of TelePain-EVP and other similar telehealth pain management programs. These descriptive data should be triangulated with quantitative data to objectively assess participant TelePain-EVP outcomes and associated participant characteristics. PERSPECTIVE: A qualitative evaluation of a telehealth program to manage chronic pain, guided by the CFIR framework, identified determinants of program implementation. Additionally, participants reported improvements in pain management coping skills, interpersonal relationships, and sense of community, but no self-reported reductions in pain or medication use.

Improving Veteran Engagement with Virtual Care Technologies: a Veterans Health Administration State of the Art Conference Research Agenda.

Although the availability of virtual care technologies in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) continues to expand, ensuring engagement with these technologies among Veterans remains a challenge. VHA Health Services Research & Development convened a Virtual Care State of The Art (SOTA) conference in May 2022 to create a research agenda for improving virtual care access, engagement, and outcomes. This article reports findings from the Virtual Care SOTA engagement workgroup, which comprised fourteen VHA subject matter experts representing VHA clinical care, research, administration, and operations. Workgroup members reviewed current evidence on factors and strategies that may affect Veteran engagement with virtual care technologies and generated key questions to address evidence gaps. The workgroup agreed that although extensive literature exists on factors that affect Veteran engagement, more work is needed to identify effective strategies to increase and sustain engagement. Workgroup members identified key priorities for research on Veteran engagement with virtual care technologies through a series of breakout discussion groups and ranking exercises. The top three priorities were to (1) understand the Veteran journey from active service to VHA enrollment and beyond, and when and how virtual care technologies can best be introduced along that journey to maximize engagement and promote seamless care; (2) utilize the meaningful relationships in a Veteran's life, including family, friends, peers, and other informal or formal caregivers, to support Veteran adoption and sustained use of virtual care technologies; and (3) test promising strategies in meaningful combinations to promote Veteran adoption and/or sustained use of virtual care technologies. Research in these priority areas has the potential to help VHA refine strategies to improve virtual care user engagement, and by extension, outcomes.

Provider Perspectives of Facilitators and Barriers to Reaching and Utilizing Chronic Pain Healthcare for Persons With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Qualitative NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project.

OBJECTIVE: To identify facilitators and barriers to reaching and utilizing chronic pain treatments for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) organized around an Access to Care framework, which includes dimensions of access to healthcare as a function of supply (ie, provider/system) and demand (ie, patient) factors for a specified patient population. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians (n = 63) with experience treating persons with TBI were interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study. MAIN MEASURES: Semistructured open-ended interview of chronic pain management for persons with TBI. Informed by the Access to Care framework, responses were coded by and categorized within the core domains (reaching care, utilizing care) and relevant subdimensions from the supply (affordability of providing care, quality, coordination/continuity, adequacy) and demand (ability to pay, adherence, empowerment, caregiver support) perspective. RESULTS: Themes from provider interviews focused on healthcare reaching and healthcare utilization resulted in 19 facilitators and 9 barriers reaching saturation. The most themes fell under the utilization core domain, with themes identified that impact the technical and interpersonal quality of care and care coordination/continuity. Accessibility and availability of specialty care and use of interdisciplinary team that permitted matching patients to treatments were leading thematic facilitators. The leading thematic barrier identified primarily by medical providers was cognitive disability, which is likely directly linked with other leading barriers including high rates of noncompliance and poor follow-up in health care. Medical and behavioral health complexity was also a leading barrier to care and potentially interrelated to other themes identified. CONCLUSION: This is the first evidence-based study to inform policy and planning for this complex population to improve access to high-quality chronic pain treatment. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of the perspectives of individuals with TBI/caregivers to inform interventions to improve access to chronic pain treatment for persons with TBI.

Stakeholder Engagement to Identify Implementation Strategies to Overcome Barriers to Delivering Chronic Pain Treatments: A NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to illustrate the process of stakeholder-engaged intervention mapping approach to identify implementation strategies to overcome data-driven prioritized barriers to receiving chronic pain services for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare providers (n = 63) with 2 or more years' experience treating persons with TBI, interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021 provided data for identification of barriers. TBI, chronic pain, and qualitative research subject matter experts (SMEs) participated in the mapping approach. DESIGN: Participatory-based research design, using descriptive and intervention mapping approaches. RESULTS: Four barriers to accessing chronic pain treatment by persons with TBI which emerged from provider interviews were prioritized for intervention mapping: cognitive deficits of patients (67%); patient comorbidities (63%); mental health and/or substance abuse issues (59%); and patient participation (62%). SMEs used prioritized barriers to develop 4 primary objectives and implementation strategies designed to: (1) engage consumers to validate and identify strategies; (2) tailor pain treatment and delivery to overcome barriers; (3) develop and disseminate guidelines and best practices when delivering care to persons with TBI to support spread; and (4) increase awareness, skills, and readiness of workforce to deliver pain treatment to persons with TBI. SMEs used an evidence-based approach to develop a mapping matrix of the prioritized barriers, implementation objectives, and aligned implementation strategies to impact change. CONCLUSION: Implementation science is needed to facilitate knowledge translation into practice for this complex population to overcome barriers to care. Implementation strategies to address barriers to accessing chronic pain care for individuals with TBI were chosen through a participatory approach to engaging SMEs to support these rehabilitation implementation efforts. Future work includes gathering input from individuals with TBI and chronic pain and to move the intervention (implementation) mapping matrix forward to inform future implementation research, policy, and practice.

Provider Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to Identifying, Perceiving, and Seeking Healthcare for Chronic Pain After TBI: A Qualitative NIDILRR and VA TBI Model Systems Collaborative Project.

OBJECTIVE: Identify determinants to chronic pain healthcare for persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI) informed by an Access to Care Framework. Findings related to the Access Framework's core domains of identifying a need, perceptions of the need, and seeking healthcare are reported. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare providers (n = 63) with 2 or more years of experience treating persons with TBI interviewed between October 2020 and November 2021. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study. MAIN MEASURES: Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions of chronic pain management for persons with TBI. Informed by the Access Framework, responses were coded by and categorized within the domains of identifying healthcare needs, perceptions of needs, and factors related to healthcare seeking from the supply and demand perspective. RESULTS: For the overall sample, 14 facilitators and 6 barriers were endorsed by more than 20% of the provider cohort. Top facilitators included on-site availability of needed resources and treatments (94%), adequate time and provider capability to ensure patient comprehension of diagnosis and treatment plans (83%), and establishing patient motivation and buy-in with the treatment plan (75%). Barriers most endorsed included policies impacting access (46%), wait times for services (41%), and patient uncertainty regarding telehealth commonly due to cognitive and physical challenges (37%). Unique determinants are reported across civilian versus Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems and different provider types. CONCLUSION: This is the first evidence-based study to inform policy and planning to improve access to high-quality chronic pain treatments for persons with TBI. Results will inform future interventions at the systems, patient, and policy levels of healthcare that can be tailored to healthcare settings (VA, Civilian) and types of providers (rehabilitation therapists, psychologists, and medical). Evidence-informed interventions may help minimize healthcare disparities experienced by persons with TBI and facilitate access to high-quality, evidence-informed chronic pain care.

Mobile and Web-Based Partnered Intervention to Improve Remote Access to Pain and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Management: Recruitment and Attrition in a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing access to nonpharmacological interventions to manage pain and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is essential for veterans. Complementary and integrative health (CIH) interventions can help individuals manage symptom burden with enhanced accessibility via remotely delivered health care. Mission Reconnect (MR) is a partnered, self-directed intervention that remotely teaches CIH skills. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to describe the recruitment, onboarding phase, and attrition of a fully remote randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessing the efficacy of a self-directed mobile and web-based intervention for veterans with comorbid chronic pain and PTSD and their partners. METHODS: A total of 364 veteran-partner dyads were recruited to participate in a mixed methods multisite waitlist control RCT. Qualitative attrition interviews were conducted with 10 veterans with chronic pain and PTSD, and their self-elected partners (eg, spouse) who consented but did not begin the program. RESULTS: At the point of completing onboarding and being randomized to the 2 treatment arms, of the 364 recruited dyads, 97 (26.6%) failed to complete onboarding activities. Reported reasons for failure to complete onboarding include loss of self-elected partner buy-in (n=8, 8%), difficulties with using remote data collection methods and interventions (n=30, 31%), and adverse health experiences unrelated to study activities (n=23, 24%). Enrolled veterans presented at baseline with significant PTSD symptom burden and moderate-to-severe pain severity, and represented a geographically and demographically diverse population. Attrition interviews (n=10) indicated that misunderstanding MR including the intent of the intervention or mistaking the surveys as the actual intervention was a reason for not completing the MR registration process. Another barrier to MR registration was that interviewees described the mailed study information and registration packets as too confusing and excessive. Competing personal circumstances including health concerns that required attention interfered with MR registration. Common reasons for attrition following successful MR registration included partner withdrawal, adverse health issues, and technological challenges relating to the MR and electronic data collection platform (Qualtrics). Participant recommendations for reducing attrition included switching to digital forms to reduce participant burden and increasing human interaction throughout the registration and baseline data collection processes. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges, solutions, and lessons learned for study recruitment and intervention delivery inform best practices of delivering remote self-directed CIH interventions when addressing the unique needs of this medically complex population. Successful recruitment and enrollment of veterans with chronic pain and PTSD, and their partners, to remote CIH programs and research studies requires future examination of demographic and symptom-associated access barriers. Accommodating the unique needs of this medically complex population is essential for improving the effectiveness of CIH programs. Disseminating lessons learned and improving access to remotely delivered research studies and CIH programs is paramount in the post-COVID-19 climate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03593772; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03593772.

Traumatic Brain Injury Intensive Evaluation and Treatment Program: Protocol for a Partnered Evaluation Initiative Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The traumatic brain injury (TBI) Intensive Evaluation and Treatment Program (IETP) is an innovative modality for delivering evidence-based treatments in a residential, inpatient format to special operational forces service members and veterans with mild TBI. IETPs provide bundled evidence-based assessment, treatment, referral, and case management in concordance with the existing guidelines for mild TBI and commonly co-occurring comorbidities. To date, there has been no formal characterization or evaluation of the IETP to understand the determinants of implementation across the system of care. The goal of our partnered evaluation initiative (PEI) with an operational partner, the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation National Program Office, is to facilitate the full implementation of the IETP across all 5 Veterans Health Administration TBI-Centers of Excellence (TBI-COE) and to inform minimum standards while supporting the unique characteristics of each site. OBJECTIVE: This IETP partnered evaluation will describe each of the 5 TBI-COE IETP services and state of implementation to identify opportunities for adaptation and scale, characterize the relationship between patient characteristics and clinical services received, evaluate the outcomes for participants in the IETP, and inform ongoing implementation and knowledge translation efforts to support IETP expansion. In alignment with the goals of the protocol, ineffective treatment components will be targeted for deimplementation. METHODS: A 3-year concurrent mixed methods evaluation using a participatory approach in collaboration with the operational partner and TBI-COE site leadership will be conducted. Qualitative observations, semistructured focus groups, and interviewing methods will be used to describe IETP, stakeholder experiences and needs, and suggestions for IETP implementation. Quantitative methods will include primary data collection from patients in the IETP at each site to characterize long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction with treatment and secondary data collection to quantitatively characterize patient-level and care system-level data. Finally, data sets will be triangulated to share data findings with partners to inform ongoing implementation efforts. RESULTS: Data collection began in December 2021 and is currently ongoing. The results and deliverables will inform IETP characterization, evaluation, implementation, and knowledge translation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this evaluation seek to provide an understanding of the determinants affecting the implementation of IETPs. Service member, staff, and stakeholder insights will inform the state of implementation at each site, and quantitative measures will provide options for standardized outcome measures. This evaluation is expected to inform national Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Office policies and processes and knowledge translation efforts to improve and expand the IETP. Future work may include cost evaluations and rigorous research, such as randomized controlled trials. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/44776.

Empower Veterans Program (EVP): a chronic pain management program demonstrates positive outcomes among veterans.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a highly prevalent health condition among veterans. Traditional pharmacological interventions present unique challenges for chronic pain management including prescription opioid addiction and overdose. In alignment with the 2016 Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and VA's Stepped Care Model to meet veterans' pain management needs, the Offices of Rural Health and Pain Management, Opioid Safety, and Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PMOP) funded an enterprise-wide initiative to implement a Step 3 integrated tele-pain program: Empower Veterans Program (EVP). EVP provides veterans with chronic pain self-care skills using a whole health driven approach to pain management. OBJECTIVES: The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act prompted the strategic approach to offer non-pharmacological options to meet veterans' pain management needs. EVP, a 10-week interdisciplinary group medical appointment, leverages Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Mindful Movement, and Whole Health to provide veterans with chronic pain self-care skills. This evaluation was conducted to describe participant characteristics, graduation, and satisfaction rates; and assess pre-post patient-reported outcomes (PRO) associated with EVP participation. METHODS: A sample of 639 veterans enrolled in EVP between May, 2015 and December, 2017 provided data to conduct descriptive analyses to assess participant demographics, graduation, and satisfaction rates. PRO data were analyzed using a within-participants pre-post design, and linear mixed-effects models were used to examine pre-post changes in PRO. RESULTS: Of 639 participants, 444 (69.48%) graduated EVP. Participant median program satisfaction rating was 8.41 (Interquartile Range: 8.20-9.20). Results indicate pre-post EVP improvements (Bonferroni-adjusted p < .003) in the three primary pain outcomes (intensity, interference, catastrophizing), and 12 of 17 secondary outcomes, including physical, psychological, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), acceptance, and mindfulness measures. DISCUSSION: Data suggest that EVP has significant positive outcomes in pain, psychological, physical, HRQoL, acceptance, and mindfulness measures for veterans with chronic pain through non-pharmacological means. Future evaluations of intervention dosing effect and long-term effectiveness of the program is needed.

User Testing of the Veteran Delegation Tool: Qualitative Inquiry.

BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers, or care partners, provide critical support to care recipients when managing health care. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) priorities identify care partners as vital in supporting veterans' care management. The Veteran Delegation Tool (VDT) is VHA's Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant solution for care partners to comanage veterans' care through VHA's electronic health portal. Human-centered design approaches in VDT development are needed to inform enhancements aimed at promoting uptake and sustained use. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective descriptive quality improvement project was to use a human-centered design approach to examine VDT use perceptions and practical experiences. METHODS: This project was conducted using a 4-phase approach: frame, discover, design, and deliver. The frame phase designed the protocol and prepared the VDT system for testing. This paper reports on the discover phase, which used semistructured and follow-up interviews and user testing to examine VDT's benefits, facilitators, and barriers. The discover phase data informed the design and deliver phases, which are underway. RESULTS: Veterans (24/54, 44%), care partners (21/54, 39%), and individuals who represented dual roles (9/54, 17%)-namely veteran care partner (4/54, 7%), veteran clinical provider (2/54, 4%), and care partner provider (3/54, 6%)-participated in semistructured interviews in the discover phase. A subsample of these participants (3/54, 6%) participated in the follow-up interviews and user testing. Analysis of the semistructured interviews indicated convergence on the respondents' perceptions of VDT's benefits, facilitators, and barriers and recommendations for improving VDT. The perceived benefits were authorized access, comanagement of care needs on the web, communication with the clinical team, access to resources, and ease of burden. Perceived barriers were nonrecognition of the benefits of VDT, technical literacy access issues, increased stress in or burden on care partners, and personal health information security. Participant experiences across 4 VDT activity domains were upgrade to My HealtheVet Premium account, registration, sign-in, and use. User testing demonstrated users' challenges to register, navigate, and use VDT. Findings informed VDT development enhancements and recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Care partners need Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant access to electronic health portals to assist with care management. VDT is VHA's solution, allowing communication among delegates, veterans, and clinical care teams. Users value VDT's potential use and benefits, while access and navigation improvements to ensure uptake and sustained use are needed. Future efforts need to iteratively evaluate the human-centered phases, design and deliver, of VDT to target audiences. Continued efforts to understand and respond to care partners' needs are warranted.

Veterans' lived experiences with the VA's Whole Health system and perceived impact on dimensions of wellness.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the lived experiences and wellness related outcomes of veterans engaged in the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Whole Health (WH) system of care? THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: This qualitative work was conducted with a pragmatic phenomenological approach to understand patients' lived experience within the WH system of care. Data were contextualized within a multi-dimensional wellness model. METHODOLOGY: This descriptive quality improvement project used semi-structured telephone interviews. Interview script elicited veterans' WH participation experiences and perceived wellness related outcomes. CONTEXT: Data were collected within a WH Service, at a large Veterans Health Administration Hospital in the Southeast United States. SAMPLE SELECTION: Data were collected with a purposive sample of veterans that participated in at least 2 WH activities. DATA COLLECTION: Patients were recruited by WH clinical team collaborators to participate in qualitative data collection. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION: Rapid content analysis and interpretation of results were conducted in alignment with dimensions of wellness constructs. MAIN RESULTS: WH offers veterans' non-pharmacological tools to improve mental, physical, and social wellness. Participants (n = 50) represented the larger veteran population. Most veterans perceived a positive WH experience with improvement of three primary dimensions including mental and emotional, physical, and social wellness - impacts on other dimensions gleaned less perceived impact. Veterans reported adopting mindfulness and coping strategies, better mobility, pain management, and sleep quality, and enhanced social engagement. Even those who did benefit personally from all aspects of WH, felt the services are needed to support the larger veteran population. Reduced suicidal ideation and pain medication use emerged as a WH effect among approximately 10% of the sample.

Primary care virtual resource use prior and post COVID-19 pandemic onset.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a catalyst for rapid uptake of virtual care through the use of virtual health resources (VHR). In the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System, virtual care has been critical to maintaining healthcare access for patients during COVID-19. In the current study we describe primary care patient aligned care team (PACT) VHR use patterns within one VA medical center (i.e., hospital facility and five community-based outpatient clinics) pre- and post-COVID-19 onset. METHODS: VHR provider and patient use data from 106 individual PACTs were extracted monthly between September 2019 to September 2020. Data were extracted from VHA web-based project application and tracking databases. Using longitudinal data, mixed effect models were used to compare pre- and post-COVID onset slopes. RESULTS: Findings highlight an increase in patient users of secure messaging (SM) and telehealth. The rate of utilization among these patients increased for SM but not for telehealth visits or online prescription refill (RxRefill) use. Finally, VetLink Kiosk check ins that are done at in person visits, diminished abruptly after COVID-19 onset. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a baseline of VHR use at the PACT level after the initial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and can inform healthcare delivery changes within the VA systems over time. Moreover, this project produced a data extraction blueprint, that is the first of its kind to track VA VHR use leveraging secondary data sources.

Provider reported value and use of virtual resources in extended primary care prior to and during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: A proactive approach to delivering care using virtual resources, while reducing in-person contact, is needed during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: In the current study we describe pre- to post- COVID-19 pandemic onset related changes in electronic delivery of primary care. METHODS: A longitudinal, pre-post within-subjects design was used. Patient-aligned care team providers from one VA medical center, a primary care annex, and four affiliated community-based outpatient clinics completed both a baseline and follow up survey (N = 62) or the follow-up survey only (N = 85). The follow-up survey contained questions about COVID-19. RESULTS: The majority of providers (88%) reported they would continue virtual care once pandemic restrictions were lifted. Most (83%) felt prepared to transition to virtual care when pandemic restrictions began. Use of My HealtheVet, Telehealth, and mobile apps showed a significant increase (22.7%; 31.1%; 48.5%). Barriers to virtual care included (1) internet connectivity; (2) patients' lack of technology comfort and skills; and (3) technical issues. Main supports to provide virtual care to patients were (1) peers/ colleagues; (2) technology support through help desk; (3) equipment such as laptops and dual screens; (4) being able to use doximety and virtual care manager, and (5) training. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, provider-use and perceptions related to using virtual care improved over time. Providers adapted quickly to providing virtual care during COVID-19 and planned to provide virtual care long-term.

Delivery of Complementary and Integrative Health Using Virtual Health Resources: A Scoping Review.

Introduction: Complementary and integrative health (CIH) modalities promote overall health and well-being and can be beneficial for individuals with a range of conditions. Traditionally, CIH has been delivered in person. COVID-19 created a need to identify sustainable remote delivery options to assure access to CIH while practicing public health recommendations. This scoping review maps the opportunities and challenges to remotely delivered CIH. Materials and methods: A scoping review was conducted between June 2020 and October 2020 using the following search engines: PubMed, Academic Search Premier, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Reviews, and the Cochrane Clinical Trial Collections. Search results investigating remote CIH delivery were restricted to articles written in English, published after 1990. Results: Of the 10,884 articles identified, after review for content and methods, 330 articles were included. Most articles were randomized controlled trials (n = 170), applied mindfulness (n = 203), and targeted mental and behavioral health conditions (n = 182). Interventions were primarily delivered through mobile applications (n = 151) and web-based platforms (n = 86). Most commonly reported barriers were adherence (n = 24), resource requirements (e.g., time and space) (n = 23), and technology-related issues (n = 21). Although most studies did not report facilitators (n = 217), most commonly reported facilitators were social and technologic supports, accessibility, usability, perceptions, and rewards. Participant outcomes measured were broad and included movement (n = 88), stress (n = 68), and pain (n = 54). Intervention characteristic outcomes most often measured were satisfaction and usability (n = 5). Conclusions: This scoping literature review identified many articles addressing remote delivery of CIH, but few reporting on the implementation of remotely delivered CIH. Findings suggest remotely delivered CIH, specifically mindfulness and meditation-based modalities, is a viable treatment option for a diverse range of health conditions. Feasibility studies and larger sample sizes are recommended to strengthen the scientific evidence.

Preliminary Evidence on the Association of Complementary and Integrative Health Care Program Participation and Medical Cost in Veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Transforming Health and Resilience through Integration of Values-based Experiences (THRIVE) is a complimentary and integrative health program. THRIVE is delivered through shared medical appointments where participants engage in provider-led education and group discussion on wellness-related topics. THRIVE has been associated with improved patient-reported outcomes in a female veteran cohort. This quality improvement study evaluated the association between THRIVE participation and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) healthcare costs across a 1 year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort study design (n = 184) used VHA administrative data to estimate the cost difference between 1 year pre- and post-THRIVE participation. The 1 year post-cost of the THRIVE cohort was then compared to the 1 year cost of a quasi-experimental waitlist control group (n = 156). Data sources included VHA administrative and electronic health records. RESULTS: Patients were roughly 51 years old, were typically White/Caucasian, and had a service priority level representing catastrophic disability. The adjusted post-THRIVE cost was $26,291 [95% confidence interval (CI): $23,014-29,015]; $1,720 higher than the previous year's cost but was not statistically significant (P = 0.289). However, a comparison between the THRIVE cohort and a group of waitlist THRIVE patients (n = 156) the intervention group on average was $8,108 more than the waitlist group (95% CI: $3,194-14,005; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, data analysis of veterans' annual healthcare cost trajectories were inconclusive. This preliminary study produced mixed results requiring more research with larger samples and randomized control trial methodology. Evidence of whether the THRIVE intervention can maintain cost effectiveness while maintaining its supported evidence of healthcare quality is needed.

Informing Proactive integrated virtual healthcare resource use in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Proactive integrated virtual healthcare resource (VHR) use can improve efficiency, maximize resource capacity for delivering optimal coordinated care and improve patient outcomes. Proactive integrated VHR use is vital for delivering high quality care. Our objectives were to identify proactive integrated VHR use among primary care teams, best practices and targeted implementation strategies to promote proactive integrated VHR use. METHODS: This is a mixed-method descriptive study. We employed a community-based participatory approach to collect data and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to analyze and contextualize findings. A cross-sectional sample of primary care team members (n = 65) from a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center participated in focus groups, follow-up interviews (n = 16), and respond to self-report surveys. Operational subject matter experts (n = 15) participated in informant interviews. RESULTS: Survey data described current use and factors that influenced singular VHR use and were convergent with qualitative findings. Focus group and interview data described no evidence of proactive integrated VHR use. Differences and similarities were identified between both utilization groups, such as facilitators and barriers, recommendations, patient education and preferred implementation strategies. All groups reported issues around VHR availability knowledge and access and functionality. Participants identified the need for best practices that are specific to care tasks and performance measures. Expert informant interviews identified a list of VHR tools that could be proactively integrated across the healthcare continuum. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems are leveraging technologies to proactively integrate VHR to maximize information exchange, clinical decision support and patient engagement. VHR is critical during global pandemics, such as COVID-19, to maintain access to care coordination and delivery while abiding by public health recommendations. Though recent requirements for reducing contact create an intrinsic motivation, cultural change through education and best practices of proactive integrated use across the healthcare continuum is needed to create a culture of VHR super users.

Transforming Health and Resiliency Through Integration of Values-based Experiences: Implementation of an Electronic Evidence-based Whole Health Clinical Program.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and integrative health (CIH) is the foundation of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Whole Health System program (WH), including Transforming Health and Resiliency through Integration of Values-based Experiences (THRIVE). The global COVID-19 pandemic prompted an urgent need to provide services such as THRIVE while following guidelines for social distancing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to describe the systematic implementation of THRIVE using an electronic delivery model. METHODS: The study involved an observational clinical program implementation project using the RE-AIM framework to contextualize the implementation strategies and results, and then the implementation of an electronically delivered CIH group medical appointment program (eTHRIVE). RESULTS: Clinical staff transitioned to 100% electronic delivery of the THRIVE curriculum using the new eTHRIVE delivery model. The current electronic delivery model, eTHRIVE, has effectively enrolled 10-12 veterans per cohort, with 8 cohorts, totaling 87 veterans to date. eTHRIVE attrition has been 6% (5/87) since initiation. CONCLUSIONS: The current climate of the VA WH programmatic initiative combined with the public health needs during a global pandemic prompted the move of THRIVE program into an electronic format to broaden scalability and reach.

Using Electronic Data Collection Platforms to Assess Complementary and Integrative Health Patient-Reported Outcomes: Feasibility Project.

BACKGROUND: The Veteran Administration (VA) Office of Patient-Centered Care and Cultural Transformation is invested in improving veteran health through a whole-person approach while taking advantage of the electronic resources suite available through the VA. Currently, there is no standardized process to collect and integrate electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) of complementary and integrative health (CIH) into clinical care using a web-based survey platform. This quality improvement project enrolled veterans attending CIH appointments within a VA facility and used web-based technologies to collect ePROs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) determine a practical process for collecting ePROs using patient email services and a web-based survey platform and (2) conduct analyses of survey data using repeated measures to estimate the effects of CIH on patient outcomes. METHODS: In total, 100 veterans from one VA facility, comprising 11 cohorts, agreed to participate. The VA patient email services (Secure Messaging) were used to manually send links to a 16-item web-based survey stored on a secure web-based survey storage platform (Qualtrics). Each survey included questions about patient outcomes from CIH programs. Each cohort was sent survey links via Secure Messaging (SM) at 6 time points: weeks 1 through 4, week 8, and week 12. Process evaluation interviews were conducted with five primary care providers to assess barriers and facilitators to using the patient-reported outcome survey in usual care. RESULTS: This quality improvement project demonstrated the usability of SM and Qualtrics for ePRO collection. However, SM for ePROs was labor intensive for providers. Descriptive statistics on health competence (2-item Perceived Health Competence Scale), physical and mental health (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10), and stress (4-item Perceived Stress Scale) indicated that scores did not significantly change over time. Survey response rates varied (18/100, 18.0%-42/100, 42.0%) across each of the 12 weekly survey periods. In total, 74 of 100 participants provided ≥1 survey, and 90% (66/74) were female. The majority, 62% (33/53) of participants, who reported the use of any CIH modality, reported the use of two or more unique modalities. Primary care providers highlighted specific challenges with SM and offered solutions regarding staff involvement in survey implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This quality improvement project informs our understanding of the processes currently available for using SM and web-based data platforms to collect ePROs. The study results indicate that although it is possible to use SM and web-based survey platforms for ePROs, automating scheduled administration will be necessary to reduce provider burden. The lack of significant change in ePROs may be due to standard measures taking a biomedical approach to wellness. Future work should focus on identifying ideal ePRO processes that would include standardized, whole-person measures of wellness.