Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM. DESIGN: Secondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. SETTING: Five integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions. PARTICIPANTS: Staff and high-risk PC patients in the VA. INTERVENTION: A multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: (a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain. RESULTS: Most (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.

What Patients Facing Cancer and Caregivers Want From Communication in Times of Crisis: A Qualitative Study in the Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Interpersonal communication is a cornerstone of patient-centered care. We aimed to identify what patients with cancer and caregivers may want from communication during a public health crisis. METHODS: We interviewed 15 patients (8 Veteran, 7 non-Veteran) and caregivers from regionally, racially, and ethnically diverse backgrounds across the US about serious illness care and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic Using an iterative, inductive and deductive process, 2 coders analyzed content associated with the code "Communication," which appeared 71 times, and identified 5 themes. RESULTS: Participants identified as White (10), Latino/a (3), Asian (1), and Black (1). (1) Help patients and caregivers prepare for care during crisis by communicating medical information directly and proactively. (2) Explain how a crisis might influence medical recommendations and impact on recovery from illness. (3) Use key messengers to improve communication between primary teams, patients, and caregivers. (4) Include caregivers and families in communication when they cannot be physically present. (5) Foster bidirectional communication with patients and families to engage them in shared decision-making during a vulnerable time. CONCLUSION: Communication is critical during a public health crisis yet overwhelmed clinicians may not be able to communicate effectively. Communicating with caregivers and family, transparent and timely communication, ensuring diverse providers are on the same page, and effective listening are known gaps even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians may need quick interventions, like education about goals of care, to remind them about what seriously ill patients and their caregivers want from communication and offer patient-centered care during crises.

Disparities in Preoperative Goals of Care Documentation in Veterans.

Importance: Preoperative goals of care discussion and documentation are important for patients undergoing surgery, a major health care stressor that incurs risk. Objective: To assess the association of race, ethnicity, and other factors, including history of mental health disability, with disparities in preoperative goals of care documentation among veterans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study assessed data from the Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) of 229 737 veterans who underwent surgical procedures between January 1, 2017, and October 18, 2022. Exposures: Patient-level (ie, race, ethnicity, medical comorbidities, history of mental health comorbidity) and system-level (ie, facility complexity level) factors. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preoperative life-sustaining treatment (LST) note documentation or no LST note documentation within 30 days prior to or on day of surgery. The standardized mean differences were calculated to assess the magnitude of differences between groups. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated with logistic regression. Results: In this study, 13 408 patients (5.8%) completed preoperative LST from 229 737 VHA patients (209 123 [91.0%] male; 20 614 [9.0%] female; mean [SD] age, 65.5 [11.9] years) who received surgery. Compared with patients who did complete preoperative LST, patients tended to complete preoperative documentation less often if they were female (19 914 [9.2%] vs 700 [5.2%]), Black individuals (42 571 [19.7%] vs 2416 [18.0%]), Hispanic individuals (11 793 [5.5%] vs 631 [4.7%]), or from rural areas (75 637 [35.0%] vs 4273 [31.9%]); had a history of mental health disability (65 974 [30.5%] vs 4053 [30.2%]); or were seen at lowest-complexity (ie, level 3) facilities (7849 [3.6%] vs 78 [0.6%]). Over time, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, patients undergoing surgical procedures completed preoperative LST increasingly more often. Covariate-adjusted estimates of preoperative LST completion demonstrated that patients of racial or ethnic minority background (Black patients: OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.77-0.80; P <.001; patients selecting other race: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81; P <.001; Hispanic patients: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.76-0.81; P <.001) and patients from rural regions (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P <.001) had lower likelihoods of completing LST compared with patients who were White or non-Hispanic and patients from urban areas. Patients with any mental health disability history also had lower likelihood of completing preoperative LST than those without a history (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92-0.94; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, disparities in documentation rates within a VHA cohort persisted based on race, ethnicity, rurality of patient residence, history of mental health disability, and access to high-volume, high-complexity facilities.

Interdisciplinary interventions that improve patient-reported outcomes in perioperative cancer care: A systematic review of randomized control trials.

INTRODUCTION: Interdisciplinary teams are often leveraged to improve quality of cancer care in the perioperative period. We aimed to identify the team structures and processes in interdisciplinary interventions that improve perioperative patient-reported outcomes for patients with cancer. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized control trials published at any time and screened 7,195 articles. To be included in our review, studies needed to report patient-reported outcomes, have interventions that occur in the perioperative period, include surgical cancer treatment, and include at least one non physician intervention clinical team member: advanced practice providers, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and registered nurses. We narratively synthesized intervention components, specifically roles assumed by intervention clinical team members and interdisciplinary team processes, to compare interventions that improved patient-reported outcomes, based on minimal clinically important difference and statistical significance. RESULTS: We included 34 studies with a total of 4,722 participants, of which 31 reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. The common clinical team member roles featured patient education regarding diagnosis, treatment, coping, and pain/symptom management as well as postoperative follow up regarding problems after surgery, resource dissemination, and care planning. Other intervention components included six or more months of continuous clinical team member contact with the patient and involvement of the patient's caregiver. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions might prioritize supporting clinical team members roles to include patient education, caregiver engagement, and clinical follow-up.

Strategies to Improve Perioperative Palliative Care Integration for Seriously Ill Veterans.

CONTEXT: Seriously ill patients are at higher risk for adverse surgical outcomes. Palliative care (PC) interventions for seriously ill surgical patients are associated with improved quality of patient care and patient-centered outcomes, yet, they are underutilized perioperatively. OBJECTIVES: To identify strategies for improving perioperative PC integration for seriously ill Veterans from the perspectives of PC providers and surgeons. METHODS: We conducted semistructured, in-depth individual and group interviews with Veteran Health Administration PC team members and surgeons between July 2020 and April 2021. Participants were purposively sampled from high- and low-collaboration sites based on the proportion of received perioperative palliative consults. We performed a team-based thematic analysis with dual coding (inter-rater reliability above 0.8). RESULTS: Interviews with 20 interdisciplinary PC providers and 13 surgeons at geographically distributed Veteran Affairs sites converged on four strategies for improving palliative care integration and goals of care conversations in the perioperative period: 1) develop and maintain collaborative, trusting relationships between palliative care providers and surgeons; 2) establish risk assessment processes to identify patients who may benefit from a PC consult; 3) involve both PC providers and surgeons at the appropriate time in the perioperative workflow; 4) provide sufficient resources to allow for an interdisciplinary sharing of care. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that individual, programmatic, and organizational efforts could facilitate interservice collaboration between PC clinicians and surgeons.

Facilitators of palliative care quality improvement team cohesion: Lessons from a seven-site implementation project in India.

BACKGROUND: The Palliative Care: Promoting Access and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) initiative is a team-based, palliative care (PC) quality improvement (QI) project working to promote high-quality PC in India. As a PC QI initiative, PC-PAICE implementation relied upon building interdisciplinary teams, providing the ideal context for understanding facilitators of team cohesion that compelled clinical, organizational, and administrative team members to work together. There is an opportunity to leverage the intersection between QI implementation and organizational theory to inform and improve implementation science. PURPOSE: As a subaim of a larger implementation evaluation, we aimed to identify facilitators of team cohesion within QI implementation context. METHODOLOGY: A quota sampling approach captured the perspectives of 44 stakeholders across three strata (organizational leaders, clinical leaders, and clinical team members) from all seven sites through a semistructured interview guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used a combination of inductive and deductive approaches informed by organizational theory to identify facilitators. RESULT: We identified three facilitators of PC team cohesion: (a) balancing formalization and flexibility around team roles, (b) establishing widespread awareness of the QI project, and (c) prioritizing a nonhierarchical organizational culture. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Leveraging CFIR to analyze PC-PAICE stakeholder interviews created a data set conducive to understanding complex multisite implementation. Layering role and team theory to our implementation analysis helped us identify facilitators of team cohesion across levels within the team (bounded team), beyond the team (teaming), and surrounding the team (culture). These insights demonstrate the value of team and role theories in implementation evaluation efforts.

Serious illness care quality during COVID-19: Identifying improvement opportunities in narrative reports from a National Bereaved Family Survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 significantly impacted care delivery to seriously ill patients, especially around including family and caregivers in patient care. AIM: Based on routinely collected bereaved family reports, actionable practices were identified to maintain and improve care in the last month of life, with potential application to all seriously ill patients. DESIGN: The Veterans Health Administration's Bereaved Family Survey is used nationally to gather routine feedback from families and caregivers of recent in-patient decedents; the survey includes multiple structured items as well as space for open narrative responses. The responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with dual review. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Between February 2020 and March 2021, there were 5372 responses to the free response questions of which 1000 (18.6%) responses were randomly selected. The 445 (44.5%) responses from 377 unique individuals included actionable practices. RESULTS: Bereaved family members and caregivers identified four opportunities with a total of 32 actionable practices. Opportunity 1: Facilitate the use of video communication, included four actionable practices. Opportunity 2: Provide timely and accurate responses to family concerns, included 17 actionable practices. Opportunity 3: Accommodate family/caregiver visitation, included eight actionable practices. Opportunity 4: Offer physical presence to the patient when family/caregivers are unable to visit, included three actionable practices. CONCLUSION: The findings from this quality improvement project are applicable during a pandemic, but also translate to improving the care of seriously ill patients in other circumstances, such as when family members or caregivers are geographically distant from a loved one during the last weeks of life.

Integrating Patient and Expert Perspectives to Conceptualize High-Quality Palliative Cancer Care for Symptoms in the US Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Study.

Quality measurement is typically the domain of clinical experts and health system leaders; patient/caregiver perspectives are rarely solicited. We aimed to describe and integrate clinician and patient/caregiver conceptualizations of high-quality palliative symptom care for patients receiving care for advanced cancer within the US Veterans Health Administration in the context of existing quality measures. We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of transcripts from prioritization discussions of process quality measures relevant to cancer palliative care. These discussions occurred during 2 modified RAND-UCLA appropriateness panels: a panel of 10 palliative care clinical expert stakeholders (7 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 social worker) and a panel of 9 patients/caregivers with cancer experience. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and independently double-coded using an a priori logical framework. Content analysis was used to identify subthemes within codes and axial coding was used to identify crosscutting themes. Patients/caregivers and clinical experts contributed important perspectives to 3 crosscutting themes. First, proactive elicitation of symptoms is critical. Patients/caregivers especially emphasized importance of comprehensive and proactive screening and assessment, especially for pain and mental health. Second, screening and assessment alone is not enough; information elicited from patients must inform care. Measuring screening/assessment and management care processes separately has important limitations. Lastly, high-quality symptom management can be broadly defined if it is patient-centered; high-quality care takes an individualized approach and might include non-medical or non-pharmacological symptom management. Integrating the perspectives of clinical experts and patients/caregivers is critical for health systems to consider as they design and implement quality measures for palliative cancer care.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Occurrence of Preoperative Goals-of-Care Conversations.

Importance: Communication about patients' goals and planned and potential treatment is central to advance care planning. Undertaking or confirming advance care plans is also essential to preoperative preparation, particularly among patients who are frail or will undergo high-risk surgery. Objective: To evaluate the association between patient risk of hospitalization or death and goals-of-care conversations documented with a completed Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decisions Initiative note among veterans undergoing surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 190 040 veterans who underwent operations between January 1, 2017, and February 28, 2020. Statistical analysis took place from November 1, 2021, to November 17, 2022. Exposure: Patient risk of hospitalization or death, evaluated with a Care Assessment Need (CAN) score (range, 0-99, with a higher score representing a greater risk of hospitalization or death), dichotomized as less than 80 or 80 or more. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preoperative LST note completion (30 days before or on the day of surgery) or no LST note completion within the 30-day preoperative period prior to or on the day of the index operation. Results: Of 190 040 veterans (90.8% men; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [11.9] years), 3.8% completed an LST note before surgery, and 96.2% did not complete an LST note. In the groups with and without LST note completion before surgery, most were aged between 65 and 84 years (62.1% vs 56.7%), male (94.3% vs 90.7%), and White (82.2% vs 78.3%). Compared with patients who completed an LST note before surgery, patients who did not complete an LST note before surgery tended to be female (9.3% vs 5.7%), Black (19.2% vs 15.7%), married (50.2% vs 46.5%), and in better health (Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 0, 25.9% vs 15.2%); to have a lower risk of hospitalization or death (CAN score <80, 98.3% vs 96.9%); or to undergo neurosurgical (9.8% vs 6.2%) or urologic surgical procedures (5.9% vs 2.0%). Over the 3-year interval, unadjusted rates of LST note completion before surgery increased from 0.1% to 9.6%. Covariate-adjusted estimates of LST note completion indicated that veterans at a relatively elevated risk of hospitalization or death (CAN score ≥80) had higher odds of completing an LST note before surgery (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53) compared with those with CAN scores less than 80. High-risk surgery was not associated with increased LST note completion before surgery (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.01). Veterans who underwent cardiothoracic surgery had the highest likelihood of LST note completion before surgery (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.24-1.47). Conclusions and Relevance: Despite increasing LST note implementation, a minority of veterans completed an LST note preoperatively. Although doing so was more common among veterans with an elevated risk compared with those at lower risk, improving proactive communication and documentation of goals, particularly among higher-risk veterans, is needed. Doing so may promote goal-concordant surgical care and outcomes.

"It's Not Us Versus Them": Building Cross-Disciplinary Relationships in the Perioperative Period.

CONTEXT: Palliative care (PC) interventions improve quality outcomes for surgical patients, yet they are underutilized in the perioperative period. Developing cross-disciplinary provider relationships increases PC consults. However, the attributes of collaborative relationships and how they evolve are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To identify perceptions of PC providers and surgeons on how collaborative cross-disciplinary relationships are built and maintained in the perioperative period. METHODS: This cross-sectional multiphase qualitative study included 23 semistructured interviews with 10 PC teams (20 providers) and 13 surgeons at geographically distributed Veteran Health Administration (VHA) sites. An analytic approach relied on team-based thematic analysis with a dual review (Krippendorf α above 0.8). RESULTS: Respondents defined successful collaborative work relationships between PC and surgeons as having the following features: 1) mutual trust; 2) mutual respect; 3) perceived usefulness; 4) shared clinical objectives; 5) effective communication; and 6) organizational enablers. In addition, the analysis elucidated a framework of six strategies for developing collaborative relationships between PC and surgical teams in the perioperative period: 1) being present, available, and responsive; 2) understanding roles; 3) establishing communication; 4) recognizing an intermediary and connecting role of supporting team members; 5) working as a team; and 6) building on previous experiences. CONCLUSION: The study informs future interventions to improve the quality of care for seriously ill patients by better-involving PC in the perioperative period. Future work will extend this approach to incorporate the perspectives of patients on their providers' collaboration and how it impacts patient-related outcomes at the intersection of PC and surgery.

Sequential and Comparative Evaluation of Pain Treatment Effectiveness Response (SCEPTER), a pragmatic trial for conservative chronic low back pain treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a common and highly disabling problem world-wide. Although many treatment options exist, it is unclear how to best sequence the multitude of care options to provide the greatest benefit to patients. METHODS: The Sequential and Comparative Evaluation of Pain Treatment Effectiveness Response (SCEPTER) trial uses a pragmatic, randomized, stepped design. Enrollment targets 2529 participants from 20 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Participants with chronic low back pain will first be randomized to one of three options: 1) an internet-based self-management program (Pain EASE); 2) a tailored physical therapy program (Enhanced PT); or 3) continued care with active monitoring (CCAM), a form of usual care. Participants not achieving a 30% or 2-point reduction on the study's primary outcome (Brief Pain Inventory Pain Interference (BPI-PI) subscale), 3 months after beginning treatment may undergo re-randomization in a second step to cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain, spinal manipulation therapy, or yoga. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, back pain-related disability, depression, and others. Participants will be assessed every three months until 12 months after initiating their final trial therapy. Companion economic and implementation analyses are also planned. RESULTS: The SCEPTER trial is currently recruiting and enrolling participants. CONCLUSIONS: Trial results will inform treatment decisions for the stepped management of chronic low back pain - a common and disabling condition. Additional analyses will help tailor treatment selection to individual patient characteristics, promote efficient resource use, and identify implementation barriers of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04142177.

Long-term opioid therapy trajectories and overdose in patients with and without cancer.

Objective: Pain is experienced by most patients with cancer and opioids are a cornerstone of management. Our objectives were (1) to identify patterns or trajectories of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and their correlates among patients with and without cancer and (2) to assess the association between trajectories and risk for opioid overdose, considering the potential moderating role of cancer. Methods and Analysis: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among individuals in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database with incident LTOT with and without cancer (N=44,351; N=285,772, respectively) between 2010-2017. We investigated the relationship between LTOT trajectory and all International Classification of Diseases-9 and 10-defined accidental and intentional opioid-related overdoses. Results: Trajectories of opioid receipt observed in patients without cancer and replicated in patients with cancer were: low-dose/stable trend, low-dose/de-escalating trend, moderate-dose/stable trend, moderate-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trend, and high-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trend. Time to first overdose was significantly predicted by higher-dose and escalating trajectories; the two low-dose trajectories conferred similar, lower risk. Conditional hazard ratios (99% CI) for the moderate-dose, moderate-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn and high-dose/escalating with quadratic downturn trends were 1·84 (1·18, 2·85), 2·56 (1·54, 4·25), and 2·41 (1·37, 4·26), respectively. Effects of trajectories on time to overdose did not differ by presence of cancer; inferences were replicated when restricting to patients with stage 3/4 cancer. Conclusion: Patients with cancer face opioid overdose risks like patients without cancer. Future studies should seek to expand and address our knowledge about opioid risk in cancer patients. Trial registration: None.

Quality Improvement in Itself Changes Your Thinking: Lessons From Disseminating Quality Improvement Methods Through a Multisite International Collaborative Palliative Care Project in India.

PURPOSE: Seven major palliative care (PC) centers in India were mentored through the Palliative Care-Promoting Assessment and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) by US and Australian academic institutions to implement a quality improvement (QI) project to improve the accessibility and quality of PC at their respective centers. The objective was to evaluate the experiences of teams in implementing QI methods across diverse geographical settings in India. METHODS: A quota sampling approach was used to elicit perspectives of local stakeholders at each site. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed development of a semistructured interview guide. Analysis leveraged deductive and inductive approaches. RESULTS: We interviewed 44 participants (eight organizational leaders, 12 clinical leaders, and 24 team members) at seven sites and identified five themes. (1) Implementing QI methods enabled QI teams to think analytically to solve a complex problem and to identify resources. (2) Developing a problem statement by identifying specific gaps in patient care fostered team collaboration toward a common goal. (3) Making use of QI tools (eg, A3 process) systematically provided a new, straightforward QI toolkit and improved QI teams' conceptual understanding. (4) Enhancing stakeholder engagement allowed shared understanding of QI team members' roles and processes and shaped interventions tailored to the local context. (5) Designing less subjective processes for patient care such as assessment scales to identify patient's symptomatic needs positively changed work practices and culture. CONCLUSION: Engaging and empowering multiple stakeholders to use QI methods facilitated the expansion and improvement of PC and cancer services in India. PC-PAICE demonstrated an efficient, effective way to apply QI methods in an international context. The impact of PC-PAICE is being magnified by developing a cadre of Indian QI leaders.

Empowering families to take on a palliative caregiver role for patients with cancer in India: Persistent challenges and promising strategies.

BACKGROUND: The population of patients with cancer requiring palliative care (PC) is on the rise in India. Family caregivers will be essential members of the care team in the provision of PC. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize provider perspectives of the challenges that Indian families face in taking on a palliative caregiving role. METHOD: Data for this analysis came from an evaluation of the PC-PAICE project, a series of quality improvement interventions for PC in India. We conducted 44 in-depth semi-structured interviews with organizational leaders and clinical team members at seven geographically and structurally diverse settings. Through thematic content analysis, themes relating to the caregivers' role were identified using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches. RESULT: Contextual challenges to taking up the PC caregiving role included family members' limited knowledge about PC and cancer, the necessity of training for caregiving responsibilities, and cultural preferences for pursuing curative treatments over palliative ones. Some logistical challenges include financial, time, and mental health limitations that family caregivers may encounter when navigating the expectations of taking on the caregiving role. Strategies to facilitate family buy-in for PC provision include adopting a family care model, connecting them to services provided by Non-Governmental Organizations, leveraging volunteers and social workers to foster PC awareness and training, and responding specifically to family's requests. CONCLUSION: Understanding and addressing the various challenges that families face in adopting the caregiver role are essential steps in the provision and expansion of PC in India. Locally initiated quality improvement projects can be a way to address these challenges based on the context.

Using Family Narrative Reports to Identify Practices for Improving End-of-Life Care Quality.

CONTEXT: Patient experiences should be considered by healthcare systems when implementing care practices to improve quality of end-of-life care. Families and caregivers of recent in-patient decedents may be best positioned to recommend practices for quality improvement. OBJECTIVES: To identify actionable practices that bereaved families highlight as contributing to high quality end-of-life care. METHODS: We conducted qualitative content analysis of narrative responses to the Bereaved Family Surveys Veterans Health Administration inpatient decedents. Out of 5964 completed surveys in 2017, 4604 (77%) contained at least one word in response to the open-ended questions. For feasibility, 1500/4604 responses were randomly selected for analysis. An additional 300 randomly selected responses were analyzed to confirm saturation. RESULTS: Over 23% percent (355/1500) of the initially analyzed narrative responses contained actionable practices. By synthesizing narrative responses to the BFS in a national healthcare system, we identified 98 actionable practices reported by the bereaved families that have potential for implementation in QI efforts. Specifically, we identified 67 end-of-life practices and 31 practices in patient-centered care domains of physical environment, food, staffing, coordination, technology and transportation. The 67 cluster into domains including respectful care and communication, emotional and spiritual support, death benefits, symptom management. Sorting these practices by target levels for organizational change illuminated opportunities for implementation. CONCLUSION: Narrative responses from bereaved family members can yield approaches for systematic quality improvement. These approaches can serve as a menu in diverse contexts looking for approaches to improve patient quality of death in in-patient settings.

Considerations for Fostering Palliative Care Awareness in Developing Contexts: Strategies From Locally Initiated Projects in India.

CONTEXT: Lack of palliative care (PC) awareness is a barrier to its utilization in developing contexts. OBJECTIVES: To identify and understand strategies that changed awareness of the concepts and value of palliative care in a multi-site quality improvement project in India. METHODS: The Palliative Care - Promoting Assessment and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) evaluation team conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with clinician and organization stakeholders at seven geographically dispersed sites. We used inductive and deductive approaches in this secondary analysis to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: We identified the following strategies to improve awareness of concepts and value of palliative care. Strategy 1: Educate medical trainees, staff, and the community about palliative care and its concepts. Sub-strategies: Participate in community events. Integrate PC concepts into early medical education. Standardize training for practitioners. Strategy 2: Design and disseminate India-specific research to reinforce awareness of the value of palliative care. Sub-strategies: Publish and use India-specific palliative care research. Strategy 3: Facilitate communication between providers and departments to improve awareness of palliative care services and its concepts. Sub-strategies: Create referral frameworks and network with providers referring to palliative care to change awareness of available services and palliative care concepts. CONCLUSION: To increase palliative care utilization, program development can include community and provider-focused efforts on awareness of the concepts and value of palliative care. These three strategies held salience across sites representing diverse Indian geographic and cultural settings; as such, they may be applicable to other contexts.

Patient selection strategies in an intensive primary care program.

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care programs have had variable impacts on clinical outcomes, possibly due to a lack of consensus on appropriate patient-selection. The US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted an intensive primary care program, known as Patient Aligned Care Team Intensive Management (PIM), in five medical centers. We sought to describe the PIM patient selection process used by PIM teams and to explore perspectives of PIM team members regarding how patient selection processes functioned in context. METHODS: This study employs an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. We analyzed qualitative interviews with 21 PIM team and facility leaders and electronic health record (EHR) data from 2,061 patients screened between July 2014 and September 2017 for PIM enrollment. Qualitative data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1,887 patients identified for PIM services using standardized criteria, over half were deemed inappropriate for PIM services, either because of not having an ambulatory care sensitive condition, living situation, or were already receiving recommended care. Qualitative analysis found that team members considered standardized criteria to be a useful starting point but too broad to be relied on exclusively. Additional data collection through chart review and communication with the current primary care team was needed to adequately assess patient complexity. Qualitative analysis further found that differences in conceptualizing program goals led to conflicting opinions of which patients should be enrolled in PIM. CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach that includes clinical judgment, case review, standardized criteria, and targeted program goals are all needed to support appropriate patient selection processes.

Promising Strategies to Support COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel: Qualitative Insights from the VHA National Implementation.

BACKGROUND: In August 2021, up to 30% of Americans were uncertain about taking the COVID-19 vaccine, including some healthcare personnel (HCP). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify barriers and facilitators of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) HCP vaccination program. DESIGN: We conducted key informant interviews with employee occupational health (EOH) providers, using snowball recruitment. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 43 VHA EOH providers representing 29 of VHA's regionally diverse healthcare systems. APPROACH: Thematic analysis elucidated 5 key themes and specific strategies recommended by EOH. KEY RESULTS: Implementation themes reflected logistics of distribution (supply), addressing any vaccine concerns or hesitancy (demand), and learning health system strategies/approaches for shared learnings. Specifically, themes included the following: (1) use interdisciplinary task forces to leverage diverse skillsets for vaccine implementation; (2) invest in processes and align resources with priorities, including creating detailed processes, addressing time trade-offs for personnel involved in vaccine clinics by suspending everything non-essential, designating process/authority to shift personnel where needed, and proactively involving leaders to support resource allocation/alignment; (3) expect and accommodate vaccine buy-in occurring over time: prepare for some HCP's slow buy-in, align buy-in facilitation with identities and motivation, and encourage word-of-mouth and hyper-local testimonials; (4) overcome misinformation with trustworthy communication: tailor communication to individuals and address COVID vaccines "in every encounter," leverage proactive institutional messaging to reinforce information, and invite bi-directional conversations about any vaccine concerns. A final overarching theme focused on learning health system needs and structures: (5) use existing and newly developed communication channels to foster shared learning across teams and sites. CONCLUSIONS: Expecting deliberation allows systems to prepare for complex distribution logistics (supply) and make room for conversations that are trustworthy, bi-directional, and identity aligned (demand). Ideally, organizations provide time for conversations that address individual concerns, foster bi-directional shared decision-making, respect HCP beliefs and identities, and emphasize shared identities as healthcare providers.

Provider perceptions of challenges to identifying women Veterans with hazardous substance use.

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of women Veterans Health Administration (VHA) users have substance use disorders (SUD). Early identification of hazardous substance use in this population is critical for the prevention and treatment of SUD. We aimed to understand challenges to identifying women Veterans with hazardous substance use to improve future referral, evaluation, and treatment efforts. METHODS: Design: We conducted a secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with VHA interdisciplinary women's SUD providers at VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System. PARTICIPANTS: Using purposive and snowball sampling we interviewed 17 VHA providers from psychology, social work, women's health, primary care, and psychiatry. APPROACH: Our analytic approach was content analysis of provider perceptions of identifying hazardous substance use in women Veterans. RESULTS: Providers noted limitations across an array of existing identification methodologies employed to identify women with hazardous substance use and believed these limitations were abated through trusting provider-patient communication. Providers emphasized the need to have a process in place to respond to hazardous use when identified. Provider level factors, including provider bias, and patient level factors such as how they self-identify, may impact identification of women Veterans with hazardous substance use. Tailoring language to be sensitive to patient identity may help with identification in women Veterans with hazardous substance use or SUD who are not getting care in VHA but are eligible as well as those who are not eligible for care in VHA. CONCLUSIONS: To overcome limitations of existing screening tools and processes of identifying and referring women Veterans with hazardous substance use to appropriate care, future efforts should focus on minimizing provider bias, building trust in patient-provider relationships, and accommodating patient identities.