Quality Improvement Efforts in VA Community Living Centers Following Public Reporting of Performance.

For two decades, the U.S. government has publicly reported performance measures for most nursing homes, spurring some improvements in quality. Public reporting is new, however, to Department of Veterans Affairs nursing homes (Community Living Centers [CLCs]). As part of a large, public integrated healthcare system, CLCs operate with unique financial and market incentives. Thus, their responses to public reporting may differ from private sector nursing homes. In three CLCs with varied public ratings, we used an exploratory, qualitative case study approach involving semi-structured interviews to compare how CLC leaders (n = 12) perceived public reporting and its influence on quality improvement. Across CLCs, respondents said public reporting was helpful for transparency and to provide an "outside perspective" on CLC performance. Respondents described employing similar strategies to improve their public ratings: using data, engaging staff, and clearly defining staff roles vis-à-vis quality improvement, although more effort was required to implement change in lower performing CLCs. Our findings augment those from prior studies and offer new insights into the potential for public reporting to spur quality improvement in public nursing homes and those that are part of integrated healthcare systems.

The 2021 Update on Pressure Injuries: A Review of the Literature.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide a review of the recent literature on the epidemiology and treatment of pressure injuries (PIs). TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Identify risk factors for developing PIs.2. Differentiate factors that could affect the healing of PIs.3. Select strategies that have an impact on the development of PIs. ABSTRACT: Keeping up with the literature on pressure injuries is always a challenge for busy clinicians. In this article, the authors summarize six important articles published in 2021. Articles cover a range of topics including epidemiology, treatment, precision medicine, nurse staffing, and patient preferences for care. For each article, a description of the study results is provided along with a comment on why the results are important. This information is intended to help clinicians incorporate new data into their clinical practice.

Homelessness and Veteran Status in Relation to Nonfatal and Fatal Opioid Overdose in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: Compared with non-Veterans, Veterans are at higher risk of experiencing homelessness, which is associated with opioid overdose. OBJECTIVE: To understand how homelessness and Veteran status are related to risks of nonfatal and fatal opioid overdose in Massachusetts. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: All residents aged 18 years and older during 2011-2015 in the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's Data Warehouse (Veterans: n=144,263; non-Veterans: n=6,112,340). A total of 40,036 individuals had a record of homelessness, including 1307 Veterans and 38,729 non-Veterans. MAIN MEASURES: The main independent variables were homelessness and Veteran status. Outcomes included nonfatal and fatal opioid overdose. RESULTS: A higher proportion of Veterans with a record of homelessness were older than 45 years (77% vs. 48%), male (80% vs. 62%), or receiving high-dose opioid therapy (23% vs. 15%) compared with non-Veterans. The rates of nonfatal and fatal opioid overdose in Massachusetts were 85 and 16 per 100,000 residents, respectively. Among individuals with a record of homelessness, these rates increased 31-fold to 2609 and 19-fold to 300 per 100,000 residents. Homelessness and Veteran status were independently associated with higher odds of nonfatal and fatal opioid overdose. There was a significant interaction between homelessness and Veteran status in their effects on risk of fatal overdose. CONCLUSIONS: Both homelessness and Veteran status were associated with a higher risk of fatal opioid overdoses. An understanding of health care utilization patterns can help identify treatment access points to improve patient safety among vulnerable individuals both in the Veteran population and among those experiencing homelessness.

Guideline-discordant dosing of direct-acting oral anticoagulants in the veterans health administration.

BACKGROUND: Clear guidelines exist to guide the dosing of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). It is not known how consistently these guidelines are followed in practice. METHODS: We studied patients from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who received DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) between 2010 and 2016. We used patient characteristics (age, creatinine, body mass) to identify which patients met guideline recommendations for low-dose therapy and which for full-dose therapy. We examined how often patient dosing was concordant with these recommendations. We examined variation in guideline-concordant dosing by site of care and over time. We examined patient-level predictors of guideline-concordant dosing using multivariable logistic models. RESULTS: A total of 73,672 patients who were prescribed DOACS were included. Of 5837 patients who were recommended to receive low-dose therapy, 1331 (23%) received full-dose therapy instead. Of 67,935 patients recommended to receive full-dose therapy, 4079 (6%) received low-dose therapy instead. Sites varied widely on guideline discordant dosing; on inappropriate low-dose therapy, sites varied from 0 to 15%, while on inappropriate high-dose therapy, from 0 to 41%. Guideline discordant therapy decreased by about 20% in a relative sense over time, but its absolute numbers grew as DOAC therapy became more common. The most important patient-level predictors of receiving guideline-discordant therapy were older age and creatinine function being near the cutoff value. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial portion of DOAC prescriptions in the VA system are dosed contrary to clinical guidelines. This phenomenon varies widely across sites of care and has persisted over time.

Synopsis of the 2020 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline: The Diagnosis and Management of Hypertension in the Primary Care Setting.

DESCRIPTION: In January 2020, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the primary care setting. METHODS: The VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included a multidisciplinary panel of practicing clinician stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions in collaboration with the ECRI Institute, which systematically searched and evaluated the literature from 15 December 2013 to 25 March 2019 and developed and rated recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. RECOMMENDATIONS: This synopsis summarizes key features of the guideline in several key areas: the measurement of blood pressure, the definition of hypertension, target treatment goals, and nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment of essential and resistant hypertension.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

BACKGROUND: In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease who received intensive systolic blood-pressure control (target, <120 mm Hg) had significantly lower rates of death and cardiovascular disease events than did those who received standard control (target, <140 mm Hg). On the basis of these data, we wanted to determine the lifetime health benefits and health care costs associated with intensive control versus standard control. METHODS: We used a microsimulation model to apply SPRINT treatment effects and health care costs from national sources to a hypothetical cohort of SPRINT-eligible adults. The model projected lifetime costs of treatment and monitoring in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease events and subsequent treatment costs, treatment-related risks of serious adverse events and subsequent costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for intensive control versus standard control of systolic blood pressure. RESULTS: We determined that the mean number of QALYs would be 0.27 higher among patients who received intensive control than among those who received standard control and would cost approximately $47,000 more per QALY gained if there were a reduction in adherence and treatment effects after 5 years; the cost would be approximately $28,000 more per QALY gained if the treatment effects persisted for the remaining lifetime of the patient. Most simulation results indicated that intensive treatment would be cost-effective (51 to 79% below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY and 76 to 93% below the threshold of $100,000 per QALY), regardless of whether treatment effects were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the remaining lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: In this simulation study, intensive systolic blood-pressure control prevented cardiovascular disease events and prolonged life and did so at levels below common willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY, regardless of whether benefits were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the patient's remaining lifetime. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .).

Effect of Intensive Blood-Pressure Treatment on Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The previously published results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial showed that among participants with hypertension and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, the rates of cardiovascular events were lower among those who were assigned to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) than among those who were assigned to a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). Whether such intensive treatment affected patient-reported outcomes was uncertain; those results from the trial are reported here. METHODS: We randomly assigned 9361 participants with hypertension to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg or a target of less than 140 mm Hg. Patient-reported outcome measures included the scores on the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item depression scale (PHQ-9), patient-reported satisfaction with their blood-pressure care and blood-pressure medications, and adherence to blood-pressure medications. We compared the scores in the intensive-treatment group with those in the standard-treatment group among all participants and among participants stratified according to physical and cognitive function. RESULTS: Participants who received intensive treatment received an average of one additional antihypertensive medication, and the systolic blood pressure was 14.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 14.3 to 15.4) lower in the group that received intensive treatment than in the group that received standard treatment. Mean PCS, MCS, and PHQ-9 scores were relatively stable over a median of 3 years of follow-up, with no significant differences between the two treatment groups. No significant differences between the treatment groups were noted when participants were stratified according to baseline measures of physical or cognitive function. Satisfaction with blood-pressure care was high in both treatment groups, and we found no significant difference in adherence to blood-pressure medications. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcomes among participants who received intensive treatment, which targeted a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, were similar to those among participants who received standard treatment, including among participants with decreased physical or cognitive function. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .).

Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Treatment Upon Erectile Function in Hypertensive Men: Findings From the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of intensive blood pressure control upon erectile function in men with hypertension, but without diabetes, is largely unknown. AIM: To examine the effects of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering on erectile function in a multiethnic clinical trial of men with hypertension. METHODS: We performed subgroup analyses from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial ([SPRINT]; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT120602, in a sample of 1255 men aged 50 years or older with hypertension and increased cardiovascular disease risk. Participants were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment group (SBP goal of <120 mmHg) or a standard treatment group (SBP goal of <140 mmHg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure was change in erectile function from baseline, using the 5-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) total score, and erectile dysfunction ([ED]; defined as IIEF-5 score ≤21) after a median follow-up of 3 years. RESULTS: At baseline, roughly two-thirds (66.1%) of the sample had self-reported ED. At 48 months after randomization, we determined that the effects of more intensive blood pressure lowering were significantly moderated by race-ethnicity (p for interaction = 0.0016), prompting separate analyses stratified by race-ethnicity. In non-Hispanic whites, participants in the intensive treatment group reported slightly, but significantly better change in the IIEF-5 score than those in the standard treatment group (mean difference = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.03, 1.32; P = 0.041). In non-Hispanic blacks, participants in the intensive group reported slightly worse change in the IIEF-5 score than those in the standard group (mean difference = -1.17; 95% CI = -1.92, -0.41; P = 0.0025). However, in non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks, further adjustment for the baseline IIEF-5 score resulted in nonsignificant differences (P > 0.05) according to the treatment group. In Hispanic/other participants, there were no significant differences in change in the IIEF-5 score between the two treatment groups (P = 0.40). In a subgroup of 280 participants who did not report ED at baseline, the incidence of ED did not differ in the two treatment groups (P = 0.53) and was without interaction by race-ethnicity. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The effect of intensive treatment of blood pressure on erectile function was very small overall and likely not of great clinical magnitude. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: Although this study included a validated measure of erectile function, testosterone, other androgen, and estrogen levels were not assessed. CONCLUSION: In a sample of male patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a SBP of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in statistically significant effects on erectile function that differed in accordance with race-ethnicity, although the clinical importance of the differences may be of small magnitude. Foy CG, Newman JC, Russell GB, et al. Effect of Intensive vs Standard Blood Pressure Treatment Upon Erectile Function in Hypertensive Men: Findings From the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial. J Sex Med 2020;17:238-248.

Update on Pressure Injuries: A Review of the Literature.

GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide information about the latest evidence-based practice related to pressure injuries (PIs). TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Identify risk factors and prevention strategies for PI.2. Explain issues related to the treatment of PI. ABSTRACT: The literature on pressure injuries continues to expand at a rapid rate, and keeping up to date with the current knowledge base is challenging. This summary describes six important new articles published in 2018 or 2019 about pressure injury pathophysiology, prevention, treatment, and epidemiology. For each article, a description of the results is provided, and then a comment about the significance of the results is offered. The new knowledge contained in this review should impact how clinicians incorporate the latest evidence-based practice for pressure injuries.

The literature on pressure injuries continues to expand at a rapid rate, and keeping up to date with the current knowledge base is challenging. This summary describes six important new articles published in 2018 or 2019 about pressure injury pathophysiology, prevention, treatment, and epidemiology. For each article, a description of the results is provided, and then a comment about the significance of the results is offered. The new knowledge contained in this review should impact how clinicians incorporate the latest evidence-based practice for pressure injuries.

Blood Pressure, Sexual Activity, and Erectile Function in Hypertensive Men: Baseline Findings from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

INTRODUCTION: Erectile function, an important aspect of quality of life, is gaining increased research and clinical attention in older men with hypertension. AIM: To assess the cross-sectional association between blood pressure measures (systolic blood pressure [SBP]; diastolic blood pressure [DBP]; and pulse pressure [PP]) and (i) sexual activity and (ii) erectile function in hypertensive men. METHODS: We performed analyses of 1,255 male participants in a larger randomized clinical trial of 9,361 men and women with hypertension aged ≥50 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were self-reported sexual activity (yes/no) and erectile function using the 5-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5). RESULTS: 857 participants (68.3%) reported being sexually active during the previous 4 weeks. The mean (SD) IIEF-5 score for sexually active participants was 18.0 (5.8), and 59.9% of the sample reported an IIEF-5 score <21, suggesting erectile dysfunction (ED). In adjusted logistic regression models, neither SBP (adjusted odds ratio = 0.998; P = .707) nor DBP (adjusted odds ratio = 1.001; P = .929) was significantly associated with sexual activity. In multivariable linear regression analyses in sexually active participants, lower SBP (ß = -0.04; P = .025) and higher DBP (ß = 0.05; P = .029) were associated with better erectile function. In additional multivariable analyses, lower PP pressure was associated with better erectile function (ß = -0.04; P = .02). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Blood pressure is an important consideration in the assessment of erectile function in men with hypertension. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Assessments of blood pressure and clinical and psychosocial variables were performed using rigorous methods in this multi-ethnic and geographically diverse sample. However, these cross-sectional analyses did not include assessment of androgen or testosterone levels. CONCLUSIONS: Erectile dysfunction was highly prevalent in this sample of men with hypertension, and SBP, DBP, and PP were associated with erectile function in this sample. Foy CG, Newman JC, Berlowitz DR, et al. Blood Pressure, Sexual Activity, and Erectile Function in Hypertensive Men: Baseline Findings from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). J Sex Med 2019;16:235-247.