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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Protecting the healthcare workforce during COVID-19: a qualitative needs assessment of employee occupational health in the US national Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee occupational health (EOH) providers were tasked with assuming a central role in coordinating employee COVID-19 screening and clearance for duty, representing entirely novel EOH responsibilities. In a rapid qualitative needs assessment, we aimed to identify learnings from the field to support the vastly expanding role of EOH providers in a national healthcare system. METHODS: We employed rapid qualitative analysis of key informant interviews in a maximal variation sample on the parameters of job type, rural versus urban and provider gender. We interviewed 21 VHA EOH providers between July and December 2020. This sample represents 15 facilities from diverse regions of the USA (large, medium and small facilities in the Mid-Atlantic; medium sites in the South; large facilities in the West and Pacific Northwest). RESULTS: Five interdependent needs included: (1) infrastructure to support employee population management, including tools that facilitate infection control measures such as contact tracing (eg, employee-facing electronic health records and coordinated databases); (2) mechanisms for information sharing across settings (eg, VHA listserv), especially for changing policy and protocols; (3) sufficiently resourced staffing using detailing to align EOH needs with human resource capital; (4) connected and resourced local and national leaders; and (5) strategies to support healthcare worker mental health.Our identified facilitators for EOH assuming new challenging and dynamically changing roles during COVID-19 included: (A) training or access to expertise; (B) existing mechanisms for information sharing; (C) flexible and responsive staffing; and (D) leveraging other institutional expertise not previously affiliated with EOH (eg, chaplains to support bereavement). CONCLUSIONS: Our needs assessment highlights local and system level barriers and facilitators of EOH assuming expanded roles during COVID-19. Integrating changes both within and across systems and with alignment of human capital will enable EOH preparedness for future challenges.

"Asking Is Never Bad, I Would Venture on That": Patients' Perspectives on Routine Pain Screening in VA Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: Screening for pain in routine care is one of the efforts that the Veterans Health Administration has adopted in its national pain management strategy. We aimed to understand patients' perspectives and preferences about the experience of being screened for pain in primary care. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews captured patient perceptions and preferences of pain screening, assessment, and management. SUBJECTS: We completed interviews with 36 patients: 29 males and seven females ranging in age from 28 to 94 years from three geographically distinct VA health care systems. METHODS: We evaluated transcripts using constant comparison and identified emergent themes. RESULTS: Theme 1: Pain screening can "determine the tone of the examination"; Theme 2: Screening can initiate communication about pain; Theme 3: Screening can facilitate patient recall and reflection; Theme 4: Screening for pain may help identify under-reported psychological pain, mental distress, and suicidality; Theme 5: Patient recommendations about how to improve screening for pain. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that patients perceive meaningful, positive impacts of routine pain screening that as yet have not been considered in the literature. Specifically, screening for pain may help capture mental health concerns that may otherwise not emerge.

Patient perspectives on an opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution program in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to prevent opioid overdose mortality among Veterans, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities began implementing opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) in 2013 and a national program began in 2014. VA is the first national health care system to implement OEND. The goal of this study is to examine patient perceptions of OEND training and naloxone kits. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted between December 2014 and February 2015 with 21 patients trained in OEND. Participants were recruited from a VA residential facility in California with a substance use disorder treatment program (mandatory OEND training) and a homeless program (optional OEND training). Data were analyzed using matrices and open and closed coding approaches to identify participants' perspectives on OEND training including benefits, concerns, differing opinions, and suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: Veterans thought OEND training was interesting, novel, and empowering, and that naloxone kits will save lives. Some veterans expressed concern about using syringes in the kits. A few patients who never used opioids were not interested in receiving kits. Veterans had differing opinions about legal and liability issues, whether naloxone kits might contribute to relapse, and whether and how to involve family in training. Some veterans expressed uncertainty about the effects of naloxone. Suggested improvements included active learning approaches, enhanced training materials, and increased advertisement. CONCLUSIONS: OEND training was generally well received among study participants, including those with no indication for a naloxone kit. Patients described a need for OEND and believed it could save lives. Patient feedback on OEND training benefits, concerns, opinions, and suggestions provides important insights to inform future OEND training programs both within VA and in other health care settings. Training is critical to maximizing the potential for OEND to save lives, and this study includes specific suggestions for improving the effectiveness and acceptability of training.