Perspectives on supporting Veterans' social needs during hospital to home health transitions: findings from the Transitions Nurse Program.

BACKGROUND: Veterans who need post-acute home health care (HHC) are at risk for adverse outcomes and unmet social needs. Veterans' social needs could be identified and met by community-based HHC clinicians due to their unique perspective from the home environment, acuity of Veterans they serve, and access to Veterans receiving community care. To understand these needs, we explored clinician, Veteran, and care partner perspectives to understand Veterans' social needs during the transition from hospital to home with skilled HHC. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected through individual interviews with Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient & community HHC clinicians, Veterans, and care partners who have significant roles facilitating Veterans' hospital to home with HHC transition. To inform implementation of a care coordination quality improvement intervention, participants were asked about VHA and HHC care coordination and Veterans' social needs during these transitions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed inductively using thematic analysis and results were organized deductively according to relevant transitional care domains (Discharge Planning, Transition to Home, and HHC Delivery). RESULTS: We conducted 35 interviews at 4 VHA Medical Centers located in Western, Midwestern, and Southern U.S. regions during March 2021 through July 2022. We organized results by the three care transition domains and related themes by VHA, HHC, or Veteran/care partner perspective. Our themes included (1) how social needs affected access to HHC, (2) the need for social needs screening during hospitalization, (3) delays in HHC for Veterans discharged from community hospitals, and (4) a need for closed-loop communication between VHA and HHC to report social needs. CONCLUSIONS: HHC is an underexplored space for Veterans social needs detection. While this research is preliminary, we recommend two steps forward from this work: (1) develop closed-loop communication and education pathways with HHC and (2) develop a partnership to integrate a social risk screener into HHC pathways.

Cluster-randomized implementation trial of two facilitation strategies to implement a novel information and communications technology at the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Information and communication technologies (ICTs) improve quality and efficiency of healthcare, but effective practices for implementing new ICTs are unknown. From 2019 to 2021, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented FLOW3, an ICT that facilitates prosthetic limb care. The goal of this study was to compare the impact of two facilitation strategies on FLOW3 adoption, implementation, and sustainment. METHODS: FLOW3 is a computerized workflow management system comprised of three applications that facilitate the three steps for prosthesis authorization. During VHA's implementation of FLOW3, we randomized 60 VHA sites to basic or enhanced facilitation groups. Basic facilitation included a manualized training toolkit and office hours. Enhanced facilitation included basic facilitation plus monthly learning collaboratives and site-specific performance reports. Outcomes included time to adoption of FLOW3 and complete FLOW3 utilization rates during implementation and sustainment periods. We compared outcomes between sites assigned to basic versus enhanced facilitation groups. Results were calculated using both intent-to-treat (ITT) and dose-response analyses. The dose-response analysis used a per-protocol approach and required sites in the enhanced facilitation group to join two of six learning collaboratives; sites that attended fewer were reassigned to the basic group. RESULTS: Randomization assigned 30 sites to enhanced facilitation and 30 to basic. Eighteen of 30 randomized sites were included in the enhanced facilitation group for dose-response analysis. During the implementation period, enhanced facilitation sites were significantly more likely to completely utilize FLOW3 than basic facilitation sites (HR: 0.17; 95% CI: 1.18, 4.53, p = 0.02) based on ITT analysis. In the dose-response analysis, the enhanced group was 2.32 (95% CI: 1.18, 4.53) times more likely to adopt FLOW3 than basic group (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced facilitation including a learning collaborative and customized feedback demonstrated greater likelihood for sites to complete a prosthetics consult using FLOW3 throughout our study. We identified statistically significant differences in likelihood of adoption using the dose-response analysis and complete utilization rate using ITT analysis during the implementation period. All sites that implemented FLOW3 demonstrated improvement in completion rate during the sustainment period, but the difference between facilitation groups was not statistically significant. Further study to understand sustainability is warranted.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing medications for opioid use disorder and naloxone distribution in Veterans Affairs emergency departments.

OBJECTIVES: Safer opioid prescribing patterns, naloxone distribution, and medications for opioid use disorder (M-OUD) are an important part of decreasing opioid-related adverse events. Veterans are more likely to experience these adverse events compared to the general population. Despite treatment guidelines and ED-based opioid safety programs implemented throughout Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers, many Veterans with OUD do not receive these harm reduction interventions. Prior research in other health care settings has identified barriers to M-OUD initiation and naloxone distribution; however, little is known about how this may be similar or different for health care professionals in VA ED and urgent care centers. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with VA health care professionals and staff using a semistructured interview guide. We analyzed the data addressing barriers and facilitators to M-OUD treatment in the ED and naloxone distribution using descriptive matrix analysis, followed by team consensus. RESULTS: We interviewed 19 VA staff in various roles. Respondent concerns and considerations regarding the initiation of M-OUD in the ED included M-OUD initiation falling outside of ED's scope of providing acute treatment, lack of VA-approved M-OUD protocols and follow-up procedures, staffing concerns, and educational gaps. Respondents reported that naloxone was important but lacked clarity on who should prescribe it. Some respondents stated that an automated system to prescribe naloxone would be helpful, and others felt that it would not offer needed support and education to patients. Some respondents reported that naloxone would not address opioid misuse, which other respondents felt was a belief due to stigma around substance use and lack of education about treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Our VA-based research highlights similarities of barriers and facilitators, seen in other health care settings, when implementing opioid safety initiatives. Education and training, destigmatizing substance use disorder care, and leveraging technology are important facilitators to increasing access to lifesaving therapies for OUD treatment and harm reduction.

Informing Use of Telehealth for Managing Chronic Conditions: Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Telehealth Use to Manage Heart Failure During COVID-19.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic forced Veterans Health Administration facilities to rapidly adopt and deploy telehealth alternatives to provide continuity of care to veterans while minimizing physical contact. The impact of moving to virtual visits on patients with congestive heart failure (HF) is unknown. The goal of this study was to understand how patients with HF and their providers experienced the shift to telehealth for managing a chronic condition, and to inform best practices for continued telehealth use. Methods and Results We identified Veterans Health Administration Medical Centers with high telehealth use before COVID-19 and sites that were forced to adopt telehealth in response to COVID-19, and interviewed cardiology providers and veterans with HF about their experiences using telehealth. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using team-based rapid content analysis. We identified 3 trajectory patterns for cardiology telehealth use before and during COVID-19. They were the low-use class (low to low), high-use class (relatively high to higher), and increased-use class (low to high). The high-use and increased-use classes fit the criteria for sites that had high telehealth use before COVID-19 and sites that rapidly adopted telehealth in response to COVID-19. There were 12 sites in the high-use class and 4 sites in the increased-use class. To match with the number of sites in the increased-use class, we selected the top 4 sites by looking at the months before COVID-19. We identified 3 themes related to telehealth use among patients with HF and cardiology providers: (1) technology was the primary barrier for both patients and providers; (2) infrastructural support was the primary facilitator for providers; and (3) both patients and providers had largely neutral opinions on how telehealth compares to in-person care but described situations in which telehealth is not appropriate. Conclusions Only 12 sites fit the criteria of high telehealth use in cardiology before COVID-19, and 4 fit the criteria of low use that increased in response to COVID-19. Patients and providers at both site types were largely satisfied using telehealth to manage HF. Understanding best practices for managing ambulatory care-sensitive conditions through virtual visits can help the Veterans Health Administration prepare for long-term impacts of COVID-19 on in-person visits, as well as improve access to care for veterans who live remotely or who have difficulty traveling to in-person appointments.