A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Providers' Experiences with the Veterans Choice Program.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (hereafter, Choice Program) seeks to improve access to care by enabling eligible Veterans to receive care from community providers. Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care providers (PCPs) play a key role in making referrals to community specialists, but their frontline experiences with referrals are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To understand VA PCPs' experiences referring patients to community specialists while VA works to expand and refine the implementation of the Choice Program. DESIGN: Qualitative study using interview methods. PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with VA primary care providers (N = 72 out of 599 contacted) recruited nationally. APPROACH: Open-ended interview questions elicited PCP perceptions and experiences with referrals to community specialists via the Choice Program. Keywords were identified using automated coding features in ATLAS.ti and evaluated using conventional content analysis to inductively describe the qualitative data. KEY RESULTS: VA PCPs emphasized problems with care coordination and continuity between the VA and community specialists (e.g., "It is extremely difficult for us to obtain and continue continuity of care because there's not much communication with the community specialist"). They described difficulties with tracking the initial referral, coordinating care after receiving community specialty care, accessing community medical records, and aligning community specialists' prescriptions with the VA formulary. CONCLUSIONS: The VA Choice Program provides access to community specialists for VA patients; however, VA primary care providers face challenges tracking referrals to community specialists and in coordinating care. Strategies to improve care coordination between the VA and community providers should focus on providing PCPs with information to follow Veterans throughout the Choice referral process and follow-up.

Outpatient continuing care after residential substance use disorder treatment in the US Veterans Health Administration: Facilitators and challenges.

BACKGROUND: In the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA), residential treatment programs are an important part of the continuum of care for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). Outpatient continuing care after residential treatment helps maintain early recovery and treatment gains. Knowing more about the drivers of variation in continuing care practices and performance across residential programs might inform quality improvement efforts. METHODS: Metrics of continuing care were operationalized and calculated for each of VHA's 63 SUD Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (SUD RRTPs) and 34 Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (MH RRTPs) with a SUD track in fiscal year 2012. Management and frontline staff of these programs were then interviewed to learn what factors might contribute to high or low program performance on the metrics compared with national averages. RESULTS: Among SUD RRTPs, the mean rate of outpatient SUD/MH continuing care was 59% within 7 days and 80% within 30 days, and the mean rate of SUD continuing care was 63% within 30 days. Among MH RRTPs with a SUD track, these rates were 56%, 75%, and 36%, respectively. There was substantial variability in continuing care rates across the 97 programs: 21%-93% for SUD/MH care within 7 days, 36%-100% for SUD/MH care within 30 days, and 4%-91% for SUD care within 30 days. Interviews with representatives of 44 programs revealed key facilitators of continuing care: accountability of program staff, predischarge scheduling, predischarge introductions to continuing care providers, strong patient relationships, accessibility, and persistent emphasis. Key challenges included inadequate program staffing, lack of program staff accountability, and poor accessibility. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation in continuing care rates across programs and identification of common facilitators at high-performing programs suggest substantial opportunity for improvement for programs with lower performance.

Predictive validity of a quality measure for intensive substance use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: Measures of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment quality are essential tools for performance improvement. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a measure of access to and engagement in intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) for SUD. However, predictive validity, or associations between this measure and treatment outcomes, has not been examined. METHODS: Data on veterans with SUD came from 3 samples: the Outcomes Monitoring Project (N = 5436), a national evaluation of VHA mental health services (N = 339,887), and patients receiving detoxification services (N = 23,572). Propensity score-weighted mixed-effects regressions modeled associations between receiving at least 1 week of IOP treatment and patient outcomes, controlling for facility-level performance and a random effect for facility. RESULTS: Propensity score weighting reduced or eliminated observable baseline differences between patient groups. Patients who accessed IOPs versus those who did not reported significantly reduced alcohol- and drug-related symptom severity, with significantly fewer past-month days drinking alcohol (b = 1.83, P < .001) and fewer past-month days intoxicated (b = 1.55, P < .001). Patients who received IOP after detoxification services had higher 6-month utilization of SUD outpatient visits (b = 2.09, P < .001), more subsequent detoxification episodes (b = 0.25, P < .001), and lower odds of 2-year mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.75; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving at least 1 week of SUD treatment in an IOP was associated with higher follow-up utilization, improved health outcomes, and reduced mortality. These associations lend support to the predictive validity of VHA's IOP quality measure. Future research should focus on measure feasibility and validity outside of VHA, and whether predictive validity is maintained once this quality measure is tied to performance incentives.

Hemoglobin A1C as a marker for surgical risk in diabetic patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty.

Diabetes is a risk factor for complications following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). This retrospective cohort study of 6088 diabetic patients from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) undergoing TJA sought to determine if hemoglobin A1c, an accessible and objective lab value, has utility as a predictor of risk of complications in TJA after controlling for demographic, surgical, and medical center effects, and to evaluate the benefits and risks of alternative thresholds. Analysis of the functional relationship between hemoglobin A1c and complications revealed that the risk linearly increases through, rather than surging at, the threshold of 7%. Before delaying surgery to achieve better diabetic control, surgeons and patients should weigh the estimated risks of TJA against the potential benefits.

Validation of the treatment identification strategy of the HEDIS addiction quality measures: concordance with medical record review.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to accurately identify the occurrence of specific health care events in administrative data is central to many quality improvement and research efforts. Many health care quality measures have treatment identification strategies based on diagnosis and procedure codes - an approach that is inexpensive and feasible but usually of unknown validity. In this study, we examined if the diagnosis/procedure code combinations used in the 2006 HEDIS Initiation and Engagement quality measures to identify instances of addiction treatment have high concordance with documentation of addiction treatment in clinical progress notes. METHODS: Four type of records were randomly sampled from VHA electronic medical data: (a) Outpatient records from a substance use disorder (SUD) specialty clinic with a HEDIS-qualified substance use disorder (SUD) diagnosis/CPT code combination (n = 700), (b) Outpatient records from a non-SUD setting with a HEDIS-qualified SUD diagnosis/CPT code combination (n = 592), (c) Specialty SUD Inpatient/residential records that included a SUD diagnosis (n = 700), and (d) Non-SUD specialty Inpatient/residential records that included a SUD diagnosis (n = 700). Clinical progress notes for the sampled records were extracted and two raters classified each as documenting or not documenting addiction treatment. Rates of concordance between the HEDIS addiction treatment identification strategy and the raters' judgments were calculated for each record type. RESULTS: Within SUD outpatient clinics and SUD inpatient specialty units, 92% and 98% of sampled records had chart evidence of addiction treatment. Of outpatient encounters with a qualifying diagnosis/procedure code combination outside of SUD clinics, 63% had chart evidence of addiction treatment. Within non-SUD specialty inpatient units, only 46% of sampled records had chart evidence of addiction treatment. CONCLUSIONS: For records generated in SUD specialty settings, the HEDIS strategy of identifying SUD treatment with diagnosis and procedure codes has a high concordance with chart review. The concordance rate outside of SUD specialty settings is much lower and highly variable between facilities. Therefore, some patients may be counted as meeting the 2006 HEDIS Initiation and Engagement criteria without having received the specified amount (or any) addiction treatment.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Pharmacotherapy for Opioid Use Disorders in VHA Residential Treatment Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Despite evidence of effectiveness, pharmacotherapy-methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone-is prescribed to less than 35% of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD). Among veterans whose OUD treatment is provided in VHA residential programs, factors influencing pharmacotherapy implementation are unknown. We examined barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD among patients diagnosed with OUD in VHA residential programs to inform the development of implementation strategies to improve medication receipt. METHOD: VHA electronic health records and program survey data were used to describe pharmacotherapy provided to a national cohort of VHA patients with OUD in residential treatment programs (N = 4,323, 6% female). Staff members (N = 63, 57% women) from 44 residential programs (response rate = 32%) participated in interviews. Barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD were identified from transcripts using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Across all 97 residential treatment programs, the average rate of pharmacotherapy for OUD was 21% (range: 0%-67%). Reported barriers included provider or program philosophy against pharmacotherapy, a lack of care coordination with nonresidential treatment settings, and provider perceptions of low patient interest or need. Facilitators included having a prescriber on staff, education and training for patients and staff, and support from leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypothesis, barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for OUD in VHA residential treatment programs were consistent with prior research in outpatient settings. Intensive educational programs, such as academic detailing, and policy changes such as mandating buprenorphine waiver training for VHA providers, may help improve receipt of pharmacotherapy for OUD.

Barriers to and facilitators of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder in VA residential treatment programs.

Among US military veterans, alcohol use disorder (AUD) is prevalent and in severe cases patients need intensive AUD treatment beyond outpatient care. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) delivers intensive, highly structured addiction and psychosocial treatment through residential programs. Despite the evidence supporting pharmacotherapy among the effective treatments for AUD, receipt of these medications (e.g., naltrexone, acamprosate) among patients in residential treatment programs varies widely. In order to better understand this variation, the current study examined barriers and facilitators to use of pharmacotherapy for AUD among patients in VA residential treatment programs. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with residential program management and staff were conducted and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide coding and analysis of interview transcripts. Barriers to use of pharmacotherapy for AUD included cultural norms or philosophy against prescribing, lack of access to willing prescribers, lack of interest from leadership, and perceived lack of patient interest or need. Facilitators included cultural norms of openness or active promotion of pharmacotherapy; education for patients, program staff and prescribers; having prescribers on staff, and care coordination within residential treatment and with other clinic settings in and outside VA. Developing and testing improvement strategies to increase care coordination and consistent support from leadership may also yield increases in the use of pharmacotherapy for AUD among residential patients.

VA residential substance use disorder treatment program providers' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to performance on pre-admission processes.

BACKGROUND: In the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), residential treatment programs are an important part of the continuum of care for patients with a substance use disorder (SUD). However, a limited number of program-specific measures to identify quality gaps in SUD residential programs exist. This study aimed to: (1) Develop metrics for two pre-admission processes: Wait Time and Engagement While Waiting, and (2) Interview program management and staff about program structures and processes that may contribute to performance on these metrics. The first aim sought to supplement the VA's existing facility-level performance metrics with SUD program-level metrics in order to identify high-value targets for quality improvement. The second aim recognized that not all key processes are reflected in the administrative data, and even when they are, new insight may be gained from viewing these data in the context of day-to-day clinical practice. METHODS: VA administrative data from fiscal year 2012 were used to calculate pre-admission metrics for 97 programs (63 SUD Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (SUD RRTPs); 34 Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation Treatment Programs (MH RRTPs) with a SUD track). Interviews were then conducted with management and front-line staff to learn what factors may have contributed to high or low performance, relative to the national average for their program type. We hypothesized that speaking directly to residential program staff may reveal innovative practices, areas for improvement, and factors that may explain system-wide variability in performance. RESULTS: Average wait time for admission was 16 days (SUD RRTPs: 17 days; MH RRTPs with a SUD track: 11 days), with 60% of Veterans waiting longer than 7 days. For these Veterans, engagement while waiting occurred in an average of 54% of the waiting weeks (range 3-100% across programs). Fifty-nine interviews representing 44 programs revealed factors perceived to potentially impact performance in these domains. Efficient screening processes, effective patient flow, and available beds were perceived to facilitate shorter wait times, while lack of beds, poor staffing levels, and lengths of stay of existing patients were thought to lengthen wait times. Accessible outpatient services, strong patient outreach, and strong encouragement of pre-admission outpatient treatment emerged as facilitators of engagement while waiting; poor staffing levels, socioeconomic barriers, and low patient motivation were viewed as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Metrics for pre-admission processes can be helpful for monitoring residential SUD treatment programs. Interviewing program management and staff about drivers of performance metrics can play a complementary role by identifying innovative and other strong practices, as well as high-value targets for quality improvement. Key facilitators of high-performing facilities may offer programs with lower performance useful strategies to improve specific pre-admission processes.

Predictive Validity of Outpatient Follow-up After Detoxification as a Quality Measure.

OBJECTIVES: Care coordination for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is a persistent challenge. Timely outpatient follow-up after detoxification from alcohol and opiates is associated with improved outcomes, leading some care systems to attempt to measure and incentivize this practice. This study evaluated the predictive validity of a 7-day outpatient follow-up after detoxification quality measure used by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS: A national sample of patients who received detoxification from alcohol or opiates (N = 25,354) was identified in VHA administrative data. Propensity score-weighted mixed-effects regressions modeled associations between receiving an outpatient follow-up visit within 7 days of completing detoxification and patient outcomes, controlling for facility-level performance and clustering of patients within facilities. RESULTS: Baseline differences between patients who did (39.6%) and did not (60.4%) receive the follow-up visit were reduced or eliminated with propensity score weighting. Meeting the quality measure was associated with significantly more outpatient treatment for SUD (b = 1.07 visits) and other mental health conditions (b = 0.58 visits), and higher inpatient utilization for SUD (b = 0.75 admissions) and other mental health conditions (b = 0.76 admissions). Notably, meeting the quality measure was associated with 53.3% lower odds of 2-year mortality (P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the predictive validity of 7-day follow-up after detoxification as a care coordination measure. Well-coordinated care may be associated with higher outpatient and inpatient utilization, and such engagement in care may be protective against mortality in people who receive detoxification from alcohol or opiates.

Predictive validity of two process-of-care quality measures for residential substance use disorder treatment.

BACKGROUND: In order to monitor and ultimately improve the quality of addiction treatment, professional societies, health care systems, and addiction treatment programs must establish clinical practice standards and then operationalize these standards into reliable, valid, and feasible quality measures. Before being implemented, quality measures should undergo tests of validity, including predictive validity. Predictive validity refers to the association between process-of-care quality measures and subsequent patient outcomes. This study evaluated the predictive validity of two process quality measures of residential substance use disorder (SUD) treatment. METHODS: Washington Circle (WC) Continuity of Care quality measure is the proportion of patients having an outpatient SUD treatment encounter within 14 days after discharge from residential SUD treatment. The Early Discharge measure is the proportion of patients admitted to residential SUD treatment who discharged within 1 week of admission. The predictive validity of these process measures was evaluated in US Veterans Health Administration patients for whom utilization-based outcome and 2-year mortality data were available. Propensity score-weighted, mixed effects regression adjusted for pre-index imbalances between patients who did and did not meet the measures' criteria and clustering of patients within facilities. RESULTS: For the WC Continuity of Care measure, 76 % of 10,064 patients had a follow-up visit within 14 days of discharge. In propensity score-weighted models, patients who had a follow-up visit had a lower 2-year mortality rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.77, p = 0.008], but no difference in subsequent detoxification episodes relative to patients without a follow-up visit. For the Early Discharge measure, 9.6 % of 10,176 discharged early and had significantly higher 2-year mortality (OR = 1.49, p < 0.001) and more subsequent detoxification episodes. CONCLUSIONS: These two measures of residential SUD treatment quality have strong associations with 2-year mortality and the Early Discharge measure is also associated with more subsequent detoxification episodes. These results provide initial support for the predictive validity of residential SUD treatment quality measures and represent the first time that any SUD quality measure has been shown to predict subsequent mortality.

Many diabetic total joint arthroplasty candidates are unable to achieve a preoperative hemoglobin A1c goal of 7% or less.

BACKGROUND: Patients with poorly controlled diabetes have an elevated risk of complications and death following total joint arthroplasty. Some centers set a threshold hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) value above which surgery is delayed pending better glycemic control. The purpose of this study was to examine how many diabetic patients scheduled for primary total joint arthroplasty underwent a delay because of an HbA1c value of >7.0%, how many subsequently achieved this goal, and how much time was necessary to achieve this goal. METHODS: The study involved a retrospective chart review at one Veterans Affairs medical center. Patients with an HbA1c of >7.0% were referred to their primary care provider for better diabetic control. Unless reduction of the HbA1c to ≤7.0% was deemed medically inadvisable, surgery proceeded only after the patient returned with an HbA1c of ≤7.0%. RESULTS: A total of 404 diabetic patients were scheduled for total joint arthroplasty. In fifty-nine cases, the surgery was delayed because of an HbA1c of >7.0%. Thirty-five of these patients were able to reduce the HbA1c level to ≤7.0% after a median of 141 days (range, seven to 1043 days), and twenty-four failed to achieve this goal. If an HbA1c goal of ≤8.0% had been used, the surgery would have been delayed in thirty cases, and twenty-one of these patients would have subsequently achieved the goal. CONCLUSIONS: When establishing a goal designed to reduce perioperative risks, there should be an expectation that the goal is achievable. Overall, an HbA1c of ≤7.0% was achieved by 380 of the 404 diabetic patients (94%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 91% to 96%), but it was achieved by only thirty-five (59%; 95% CI, 46% to 72%) of the fifty-nine patients presenting with an HbA1c of >7.0%. An HbA1c of 8.0% was achieved by 395 (98%; 95% CI, 96% to 99%) of the diabetic patients and by twenty-one (70%; 95% CI, 50% to 85%) of the thirty patients presenting with an HbA1c of >8.0%. Achieving an HbA1c value of ≤7.0% may not be possible for certain diabetic patients, and such a requirement may risk access to total joint arthroplasty treatment.