Statistical Methods to Examine Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Surgical Literature: A Review and Recommendations for Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: We characterized the quality of statistical methods for studies of racial and ethnic disparities in the surgical-relevant literature during 2021-2022. BACKGROUND: Hundreds of scientific papers are published each year describing racial and ethnic disparities in surgical access, quality, and outcomes. The content and design quality of this literature has never been systematically reviewed. METHODS: We searched for 2021-2022 studies focused on describing racial and/or ethnic disparities in surgical or perioperative access, process quality, or outcomes. Identified studies were characterized in terms of three methodological criteria: 1) adjustment for variables related to both race/ethnicity and outcomes, including social determinants of health (SDOH); 2) accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals or other subunits ("providers") and; 3) distinguishing within- and between-provider effects. RESULTS: We identified 224 papers describing racial and/or ethnic differences. Of the 38 single institution studies, 24 (63.2%) adjusted for at least one SDOH variable. Of the 186 multisite studies, 113 (60.8%) adjusted for at least one SDOH variable, and 43 (23.1%) accounted for clustering of patients within providers using appropriate statistical methods. Only 10 (5.4%) of multi-institution studies made efforts to examine how much of overall disparities were driven by within versus between provider effects. CONCLUSIONS: Most recently published papers on racial and ethnic disparities in the surgical literature do not meet these important statistical design criteria and therefore may risk inaccuracy in the estimation of group differences in surgical access, quality, and outcomes. The most potent leverage points for these improvements are changes to journal publication guidelines and policies.

Trends in Bundled Outpatient Behavioral Health Services in VA-Direct Versus VA-Purchased Care.

The Veterans Health Administration (VA) increasingly purchases community-based care (CC) to improve healthcare access, including behavioral health. In 2018, VA introduced standardized episodes of care (SEOCs) to guide authorization and purchase of CC services for specific indications in a defined timeframe without bundling payment. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we describe trends in VA and CC behavioral healthcare utilization using the VA Outpatient Psychiatry SEOC definition. Counts of Outpatient Psychiatry SEOC-allowable service and procedure codes during fiscal years 2016-2019 were organized according to four SEOC-defined service types (evaluation and management, laboratory services, psychiatry services, transitional care) and measured as percentages of all included codes. Trends comparing behavioral healthcare utilization between Veterans using any CC versus VA only were analyzed using a linear mixed effects model. We identified nearly 3 million Veterans who registered 60 million qualifying service and procedure codes, with overall utilization increasing 77.8% in CC versus 5.2% in VA. Veterans receiving any CC comprised 3.9% of the cohort and 4.7% of all utilization. When examining service type as a percent of all Outpatient Psychiatry SEOC-allowable care among Veterans using CC, psychiatry services increased 12.2%, while transitional care decreased 8.8%. In regression analysis, shifts in service type utilization reflected descriptive results but with attenuated effect sizes. In sum, Outpatient Psychiatry SEOC-allowable service utilization grew, and service type composition changed, significantly more in CC than in VA. The role of SEOCs and their incentives may be important when evaluating future behavioral healthcare quality and value in bundled services.

Racial and Ethnic and Rural Variations in Access to Primary Care for Veterans Following the MISSION Act.

Importance: The 2018 Veterans Affairs Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (VA MISSION) Act was implemented to increase timely access to care by expanding veterans' opportunities to receive Veterans Affairs (VA)-purchased care in the community (community care [CC]). Because health equity is a major VA priority, it is important to know whether Black and Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans experienced equitable access to primary care within the VA MISSION Act. Objective: To examine whether utilization of and wait times for primary care differed between Black and Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans in rural and urban areas after the implementation of the VA MISSION Act. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used VA and CC outpatient and consult data from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse for fiscal years 2021 to 2022 (October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2022). Separate fixed-effects multivariable models were run to predict CC utilization and wait times. Each model was run twice, once comparing Black and White veterans and then comparing Hispanic and White veterans. Adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) were calculated for Black and Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans within rurality status for both outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: VA and CC primary care utilization as measured by primary care visits (utilization cohort); VA and CC primary care access as measured by mean wait times (access cohort). Results: A total of 5 046 087 veterans (994 517 [19.7%] Black, 390 870 [7.7%] Hispanic, and 3 660 700 [72.6%] White individuals) used primary care from fiscal years 2021 to 2022. Utilization increased for all 3 racial and ethnicity groups, more so in CC than VA primary care. ARRs were significantly less than 1 regardless of rurality status, indicating Black and Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans were less likely to utilize CC for primary care. There were 468 246 primary care consultations during the study period. The overall mean (SD) wait time was 33.3 (32.4) days. Despite decreases in wait times over time, primary care wait times remained longer in CC than in VA. Black veterans compared with White veterans had significantly longer wait times in CC (ARRs >1) but significantly shorter wait times in VA (ARRS <1) regardless of rurality status in VA and CC. CC wait times for Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans were longer in rural areas only and in VA rural and urban areas (ARRs >1). Conclusion and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that additional research should explore the determinants and implications of utilization differences among Black and Hispanic veterans compared with White veterans. Efforts to promote equitable primary care access for all veterans are needed so that policy changes can be more effective in ensuring timely access to care for all veterans.

Standardizing Patient Safety Event Reporting between Care Delivered or Purchased by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

BACKGROUND: Increasing community care (CC) use by veterans has introduced new challenges in providing integrated care across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and CC. VHA's well-recognized patient safety program has been particularly challenging for CC staff to adopt and implement. To standardize VHA safety practices across both settings, VHA implemented the Patient Safety Guidebook in 2018. The authors compared national- and facility-level trends in VHA and CC safety event reporting post-Guidebook implementation. METHODS: In this retrospective study using patient safety event data from VHA's event reporting system (2020-2022), the research team examined trends in patient safety events, adverse events, close calls (near misses), and recovery rates (ratio of close calls to adverse events plus close calls) in VHA and CC using linear regression models to determine whether the average changes in VHA and CC safety events at the national and facility levels per quarter were significant. RESULTS: A total of 499,332 safety events were reported in VHA and CC. Although VHA patient safety event trends were not significant (p > 0.05), there was a significant negative trend for adverse events (p = 0.02) and positive trends for close calls (p = 0.003) and recovery rates (p = 0.004). In CC there were significant negative trends for patient safety events and adverse events (p = 0.02) and a significant positive trend for recovery rates (p = 0.03). There was less variation in VHA than in CC facilities with significant decreases (for example, interquartile ranges in VHA and CC were 0.03 vs. 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: Fluctuations in different safety events over time were likely due to the disruption of care caused by COVID-19 as well as organizational factors. Notably, the increases in recovery rates reflect less staff focus on harmful events and more attention to close calls (preventable events). Although safety practice adoption from VHA to CC was feasible, additional implementation strategies are needed to sustain standardized safety reporting across settings.

Quality improvement lessons learned from National Implementation of the "Patient Safety Events in Community Care: Reporting, Investigation, and Improvement Guidebook".

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate nationwide implementation of a Guidebook designed to standardize safety practices across VA-delivered and VA-purchased care (i.e., Community Care) and identify lessons learned and strategies to improve them. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Qualitative data collected from key informants at 18 geographically diverse VA facilities across 17 Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews from 2019 to 2022 with VISN Patient Safety Officers (PSOs) and VA facility patient safety and quality managers (PSMs and QMs) and VA Facility Community Care (CC) staff to assess lessons learned by examining organizational contextual factors affecting Guidebook implementation based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Interviews were conducted virtually with 45 facility staff and 10 VISN PSOs. Using directed content analysis, we identified CFIR factors affecting implementation. These factors were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategy compilation to identify lessons learned that could be useful to our operational partners in improving implementation processes. We met frequently with our partners to discuss findings and plan next steps. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Six CFIR constructs were identified as both facilitators and barriers to Guidebook implementation: (1) planning for implementation; (2) engaging key knowledge holders; (3) available resources; (4) networks and communications; (5) culture; and (6) external policies. The two CFIR constructs that were only barriers included: (1) cosmopolitanism and (2) executing implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest several important lessons: (1) engage all collaborators involved in implementation; (2) ensure end-users have opportunities to provide feedback; (3) describe collaborators' purpose and roles/responsibilities clearly at the start; (4) communicate information widely and repeatedly; and (5) identify how multiple high priorities can be synergistic. This evaluation will help our partners and key VA leadership to determine next steps and future strategies for improving Guidebook implementation through collaboration with VA staff.