Aging Back Clinics-a Geriatric Syndrome Approach to Treating Chronic Low Back Pain in Older Adults: Results of a Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Treating chronic low back pain (CLBP) with spine-focused interventions is common, potentially dangerous, and often ineffective. This preliminary trial tests the feasibility and efficacy of caring for CLBP in older adults as a geriatric syndrome in Aging Back Clinics (ABC). DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient clinics of two VA Medical Centers. SUBJECTS: Fifty-five English-speaking veterans aged 60-89 with CLBP and no red flags for serious underlying illness, prior back surgery, dementia, impaired communication, or uncontrolled psychiatric illness. METHODS: Participants were randomized to ABC care or usual care (UC) and followed for six months. ABC care included 1) a structured history and physical examination to identify pain contributors, 2) structured participant education, 3) collaborative decision-making, and 4) care guided by condition-specific algorithms. Primary outcomes were low back pain severity (0-10 current and seven-day average/worst pain) and pain-related disability (Roland Morris). Secondary outcomes included the SF-12 and health care utilization. RESULTS: ABC participants experienced significantly greater reduction in seven-day average (-1.22 points, P = 0.023) and worst pain (-1.70 points, P = 0.003) and SF-12 interference with social activities (50.0 vs 11.5%, P = 0.0030) at six months. ABC participants were less likely to take muscle relaxants (16.7 vs 42.3%, P = 0.0481). Descriptively, UC participants were more likely to experience pain-related emergency room visits (45.8% vs 30.8%) and to be exposed to non-COX2 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (73.1% vs 54.2%). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data suggest that ABC care for older veterans with CLBP is feasible and may reduce pain and exposure to other potential morbidity.

Utilization of the Veterans Affairs' Transgender E-consultation Program by Health Care Providers: Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nationally implemented a transgender e-consultation (e-consult) program with expert clinical guidance for providers. OBJECTIVE: This mixed-methods project aimed to describe providers' program experiences, reasons for nonuse of the program, and ways to improve the program use. METHODS: From January to May 2017, 15 urban and rural VA providers who submitted at least one e-consult in the last year participated in semistructured interviews about their program experiences, which were analyzed using content analysis. From November to December 2017, 53 providers who encountered transgender patients but did not utilize the program participated in a brief online survey on the reasons for nonuse of the program and the facilitators encouraging use. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis showed that providers learned of the program through email; colleagues; the electronic health record (EHR) system; and participation in the VA Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender committees or educational trainings. Providers used the program to establish care plans, hormone therapy recommendations, sexual and reproductive health education, surgical treatment education, patient-provider communication guidance, and second opinions. The facilitators of program use included understandable recommendations, ease of use through the EHR system, and status as the only transgender resource for rural providers. Barriers to use included time constraints, communication-related problems with the e-consult, impractical recommendations for underresourced sites, and misunderstanding of the e-consult purpose. Suggestions for improvement included addition of concise or sectioned responses, expansion of program awareness among providers or patients, designation of a follow-up contact person, and increase in provider education about transgender veterans and related care. Quantitative analysis showed that the common reasons for nonuse of the program were no knowledge of the program (54%), no need of the program (32%), and receipt of help from a colleague outside of e-consult (24%). Common suggestions to improve the program use in quantitative analyses included provision of more information about where to find e-consult in the chart, guidance on talking with patients about the program, and e-mail announcements to improve provider awareness of the program. Post hoc exploratory analyses showed no differences between urban and rural providers. CONCLUSIONS: The VA transgender e-consult program is useful for providers, but there are several barriers to implementing recommendations, some of which are especially challenging for rural providers. Addressing the identified barriers and enhancing the facilitators may improve program use and quality care for transgender veterans.

A Program to Support Scholarship During Internal Medicine Residency Training: Impact on Academic Productivity and Resident Experiences.

Problem: Although scholarship during residency training is an important requirement from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, efforts to support resident scholarship have demonstrated inconsistent effects and have not comprehensively evaluated resident experiences. Intervention: We developed the Leadership and Discovery Program (LEAD) to facilitate scholarship among all non-research-track categorical internal medicine (IM) residents. This multifaceted program set expectations for all residents to participate in a scholarly project, supported faculty to manage the program, facilitated access to faculty mentors, established a local resident research day to highlight scholarship, and developed a didactic lecture series. Context: We implemented LEAD at a large university training program. We assessed resident scholarship before and after LEAD implementation using objective metrics of academic productivity (i.e., scientific presentations, peer-reviewed publications, and both presentations and publications). We compared these metrics in LEAD participants and a similar historical group of pre-LEAD controls. We also assessed these outcomes over the same two periods in research track residents who participated in research training independent from and predating LEAD (research track controls and pre-LEAD research track controls). We conducted focus groups to qualitatively assess resident experiences with LEAD. Outcome: Compared to 63 pre-LEAD controls, greater proportions of 52 LEAD participants completed scientific presentations (48.1% vs. 28.6%, p = .03) and scientific presentations and peer-reviewed publications (23.1% vs. 9.5%, p = .05). No significant differences existed for any academic productivity metrics among research track controls and pre-LEAD research track controls (p > .23, all comparisons). Perceived facilitators of participation in LEAD included residents' desire for research experiences and opportunities to publish prior to fellowship training; the main barrier to participation was feeling overwhelmed due to the time constraints imposed by clinical training. Suggestions for improvement included establishing clearer programmatic expectations and providing lists of potential mentors and projects. Lessons Learned: Implementation of a multifaceted program to support scholarship during residency was associated with significant increases in academic productivity among IM residents. Residents perceived that programs to support scholarship during residency training should outline clear expectations and identify available mentors and projects for residents who are challenged by the time constraints of clinical training.

Quality and Value of Health Care in the Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Study.

Background The attitudes of Department of Veterans Affairs ( VA ) cardiovascular clinicians toward the VA 's quality-of-care processes, clinical outcomes measures, and healthcare value are not well understood. Methods and Results Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with cardiovascular healthcare providers (n=31) at VA hospitals that were previously identified as high or low performers in terms of healthcare value. The interviews focused on VA providers' experiences with measures of processes, outcomes, and value (ie, costs relative to outcomes) of cardiovascular care. Most providers were aware of process-of-care measurements, received regular feedback generated from those data, and used that feedback to change their practices. Fewer respondents reported clinical outcomes measures influencing their practice, and virtually no participants used value data to inform their practice, although several described administrative barriers limiting high-cost care. Providers also expressed general enthusiasm for the VA 's quality measurement/improvement efforts, with relatively few criticisms about the workload or opportunity costs inherent in clinical performance data collection. There were no material differences in the responses of employees of low-performing versus high-performing VA medical centers. Conclusions Regardless of their medical center's healthcare value performance, most VA cardiovascular providers used feedback from process-of-care data to inform their practice. However, clinical outcomes data were used more rarely, and value-of-care data were almost never used. The limited use of outcomes data to inform healthcare practice raises concern that healthcare outcomes may have insufficient influence, whereas the lack of value data influencing cardiovascular care practices may perpetuate inefficiencies in resource use.